Irma Grese- Agerman Heroine A slut too.
Roger Hughes
On Mon, 21 Jul 1997 18:55:24, mvan...@rbi.com (Mark Van Alstine) wrote:
> Survivors Isabella Leitner and Olga Lengyel have documented Grese's
> bisexual escapades, the latter noting that "Grese" often had homosexual
> affairs with prisoners - which was a _major_ violation of the Race and
> Resettlement Act ( a matter of _Rassenschande_) - and then had the
> potential incriminating participants killed. Dr. Gisella Perl observed
> that "Grese" relished whipping well-deloped young woman and the breasts,
> which eventually became infected. Once this occurred, Perl, the inmate
> doctor, would be ordered to operate and Grese would become sexually
> aroused just watching the woman's suffering. No anesthetic was used and
> the victim would scream in agony throughout the procedure. Equally
> sickening testimony was also presented at the Lu"neberg Trial. In laying
> out its case, the prosecution gave the court eye-witness testimony that
> "this 100-pound German girl invented new methods of torture. One of them:
> she waited until a pregnant woman was ready to give birth, then tied her
> legs together and watched the agony.
You people just never tire of posting this ridiculous crap.
"Eyewitnesses" to what alledgedly happened in these camps are
notoriously unreliable. I remember hearing all about Jews being killed
in electrocution chambers, steam chambers, executed by being driven over
with large trucks, etc., etc., ad naseum infinitum - all of it utter
nonsense, and accepted today as exactly that.
Regards,
Roger Hughes
http://www.usaor.net/users/ipm/
"The chief difference between Jews and the other peoples seems
to be this. Other peoples learn from experience. The Jews do not."
-Samuel Roth, Jews Must Live, pp. 109
National Alliance Internet Broadcasts
http://www.natvan.com
http://www.natall.com
Mike Curtis
i...@usaor.net (Roger Hughes) wrote:
>On Mon, 21 Jul 1997 18:55:24, mvan...@rbi.com (Mark Van Alstine) wrote:
>
>> Survivors Isabella Leitner and Olga Lengyel have documented Grese's
>> bisexual escapades, the latter noting that "Grese" often had homosexual
>> affairs with prisoners - which was a _major_ violation of the Race and
>> Resettlement Act ( a matter of _Rassenschande_) - and then had the
>> potential incriminating participants killed. Dr. Gisella Perl observed
>> that "Grese" relished whipping well-deloped young woman and the breasts,
>> which eventually became infected. Once this occurred, Perl, the inmate
>> doctor, would be ordered to operate and Grese would become sexually
>> aroused just watching the woman's suffering. No anesthetic was used and
>> the victim would scream in agony throughout the procedure. Equally
>> sickening testimony was also presented at the Lu"neberg Trial. In laying
>> out its case, the prosecution gave the court eye-witness testimony that
>> "this 100-pound German girl invented new methods of torture. One of them:
>> she waited until a pregnant woman was ready to give birth, then tied her
>> legs together and watched the agony.
>
>You people just never tire of posting this ridiculous crap.
Provide evidence that it is ridiculous. _You_, after all are making
this claim. Therefor, roger, you have the burden of proof. ;-)
>"Eyewitnesses" to what alledgedly happened in these camps are
>notoriously unreliable.
Why?
> I remember hearing all about Jews being killed
>in electrocution chambers, steam chambers, executed by being driven over
>with large trucks, etc., etc., ad naseum infinitum - all of it utter
>nonsense, and accepted today as exactly that.
Accepted by whom? From whom did you "hear" this?
Mike Curtis
Nizkor (USA) - An Electronic Holocaust Educational Resource
Anonymous ftp: http://ftp.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/
European mirror: http://www1.de.nizkor.org/~nizkor/
Nizkor Web: http://www.nizkor.org/ (Under construction - permanently!)
Roger Hughes
On Tue, 22 Jul 1997 22:13:05, mi...@aimetering.com (Mike Curtis) wrote:
> i...@usaor.net (Roger Hughes) wrote:
>
> >On Mon, 21 Jul 1997 18:55:24, mvan...@rbi.com (Mark Van Alstine) wrote:
> >
> >> Survivors Isabella Leitner and Olga Lengyel have documented Grese's
> >> bisexual escapades, the latter noting that "Grese" often had homosexual
> >> affairs with prisoners - which was a _major_ violation of the Race and
> >> Resettlement Act ( a matter of _Rassenschande_) - and then had the
> >> potential incriminating participants killed. Dr. Gisella Perl observed
> >> that "Grese" relished whipping well-deloped young woman and the breasts,
> >> which eventually became infected. Once this occurred, Perl, the inmate
> >> doctor, would be ordered to operate and Grese would become sexually
> >> aroused just watching the woman's suffering. No anesthetic was used and
> >> the victim would scream in agony throughout the procedure. Equally
> >> sickening testimony was also presented at the Lu"neberg Trial. In laying
> >> out its case, the prosecution gave the court eye-witness testimony that
> >> "this 100-pound German girl invented new methods of torture. One of them:
> >> she waited until a pregnant woman was ready to give birth, then tied her
> >> legs together and watched the agony.
> >
> >You people just never tire of posting this ridiculous crap.
>
> Provide evidence that it is ridiculous. _You_, after all are making
> this claim. Therefor, roger, you have the burden of proof. ;-)
No way, Bucko, the burden of proof is on you. You people are the ones
making the claim. Under your rules I could easily claim that you
murdered somebody and I have eyewitnesses to "prove it." Now, you
disprove that you DIDN'T murdered somebody!
> >"Eyewitnesses" to what alledgedly happened in these camps are
> >notoriously unreliable.
>
> Why?
They've been shown to be wrong in so many cases, that's why I demand
some physical evidence.
> > I remember hearing all about Jews being killed
> >in electrocution chambers, steam chambers, executed by being driven over
> >with large trucks, etc., etc., ad naseum infinitum - all of it utter
> >nonsense, and accepted today as exactly that.
>
> Accepted by whom? From whom did you "hear" this?
Nuremburg trail testimony.
Gord McFee
In <5r3skq$4r7$1...@skin01.micron.net>, on 07/23/97
at 03:26 AM, sbr...@micron.net (Brian Smith) said:
[deleted]
:>Without physical evidence -- and what is more, without a plausible
:>explanation for the curious lack of such physical evidence -- I
:>seriously doubt the Holohoax story (tm) took place as alleged. I'm sure
:>the public would also conclude the same if people knew the deep doo-doo
:>the Holohoax story is in.! Careful Mike: the word's getting around,
:>you know!
Oh what the hell, Brian, I'll be civil to you for a couple of sentences.
There is indeed, as has been posted here dozens of times, all sorts of
physical evidence. The fact that the public is not buying your claptrap
demonstrates that people with anything approaching an open mind, who
analyze the evidence, come to the conclusion that the Holocaust occurred.
--
Gord McFee <gmc...@ibm.net>
I'll write no line before its time
Brian Smith
i...@usaor.net (Roger Hughes) wrote:
>On Tue, 22 Jul 1997 22:13:05, mi...@aimetering.com (Mike Curtis) wrote:
>> >"Eyewitnesses" to what alledgedly happened in these camps are
>> >notoriously unreliable.
>> Why?
Why, you ask? Here's some more "reliable eyewitness" testimony for
you, Mike, and this one constituted "evidence" (sic) at the Nuremberg
trials!
" It was in 1942 [at Belsen] that the special electrical
appliances were built in for mass extermination of people. Under
the pretext that the people were being led to the bath-house, the
doomed were undressed and then driven to the building where the
floor was electrified in a special way; there they were killed. "
IMT VII - p.576-577.
Without physical evidence -- and what is more, without a plausible
explanation for the curious lack of such physical evidence -- I
seriously doubt the Holohoax story (tm) took place as alleged. I'm
sure the public would also conclude the same if people knew the deep
doo-doo the Holohoax story is in.! Careful Mike: the word's getting
around, you know!
[Mike's usual disingenuous and dishonesty, snipped for decency.!]
Archive THIS, Nizkook!
( )( )
\ | | /
MOONING the Nizkor Camera!
http://www.kaiwan.com/~ihrgreg/ Greg Raven's Website
http://www.webcom.com/~ezundel/english/welcome.html Zundelsite
http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~lpauling/ Student Revisionist Resource Site
http://www.webcom.com/ezundel/english/LEUCHTER/leuchtertoc.html
http://www.codoh.com/irving/irving.html David Irving
http://www.codoh.com/ Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust
http://pubweb.acns.nwu.edu/~abutz/ Arthur R. Butz
http://www.air-photo.com/ Air Photo Evidence (John Ball)
http://www.adam.com.au/~fredadin/adins.html Adelaide Institute
http://www.codoh.com/rudolf/rudreport/rudreport.html
Brian Smith
http://www.natall.com
"A civilization which tolerates the existence of Kaplan and his filthy
business should be burned to the ground" I said. "We should make
a bonfire of the whole thing and then start over fresh."
_The Turner Diaries_. p. 85
>-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-
\|/ Towards a New Consciousness. \|/
| A New Future. |
A New People.
>.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-
Alex Vange
>family, and the van Pels were arrested, imprisoned, deported to Auschwitz
>(where van Pels was gassed on arrival), and then to Bergen Belsen where
>she (and her sister) died of typhus -and the privations inflicted upon
>them by the Nazis. One simply cannot deny that Anne Frank was a victim of
>Nazi brutality and cruelty. Ann Frank's plight, unfortunately, was typical
>of _millions_ of other victims.
If any female found her way into the hands of the leftists during WWII
she would of been raped dozens of times. But this isn't found in the
stories about the Germans. It is strange that the communists and their
fellow travellers during WWII didn't lie about it and blame the Germans
for what they really do themselves. but I hear no mention of miss Frank
being raped, which surely would of happened if the Germans were so cruel.
The Germans correctly arrested the Jews during WWII, as the Americans
arrested the Japanese during the war. The Germans knew that the Jews were
behind communism. At the end of the war Germany was being bombed to
rubble. It isn't very surprising that food, medicine and other supplies
would be hard to come by, especially for prisoners.
The post above talks about the cruelty of the Germans. What about the
enemies of the Germans, such as the reds in Spain who nailed nuns to the
wall and pounded there religious medals into their eye sockets.
Of course war is hell, but what about all the rubbish about the
Germans being so bad. Maybe if someone other than the Jews were making
the movies, people would see that the communists were a thousand times
worse.
During WWII the Germans made radio broadcasts to America from Berlin.
this is part of what they said:
"The world today is divided into two camps, on the one side
Bolshevism, and on the other the forces for civilization. Why is America
on the wrong side?"
Mike Curtis
sbr...@micron.net (Brian Smith) wrote:
>i...@usaor.net (Roger Hughes) wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 22 Jul 1997 22:13:05, mi...@aimetering.com (Mike Curtis) wrote:
>
>>> >"Eyewitnesses" to what alledgedly happened in these camps are
>>> >notoriously unreliable.
>
>>> Why?
>
>Why, you ask? Here's some more "reliable eyewitness" testimony for
>you, Mike, and this one constituted "evidence" (sic) at the Nuremberg
>trials!
>
>" It was in 1942 [at Belsen] that the special electrical
>appliances were built in for mass extermination of people. Under
>the pretext that the people were being led to the bath-house, the
>doomed were undressed and then driven to the building where the
>floor was electrified in a special way; there they were killed. "
>
>IMT VII - p.576-577.
This is much like what was posted below. Read it first:
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 1997 16:02:30 -0600
From: CENT...@ix.netcom.com
Subject: Tales From The "HOLOHOAX"Part II
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Message-ID: <8696915...@dejanews.com>
Reply-To: Sc...@infonline.net
Organization: Deja News Posting Service
To: Sc...@infonline.net
X-Article-Creation-Date: Wed Jul 23 20:59:04 1997 GMT
X-Originating-IP-Addr: 199.183.195.55 (pit-pa1-23.ix.netcom.com)
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/2.01E-NC250 (Win95; U; 16bit)
X-Authenticated-Sender: CENT...@ix.netcom.com
Lines: 31
The Soviets came up with a novel idea of how
the Jews were exterminated at the Belzec camp."The Jews
were ordered to undress as though to take a bath.They were
led in fact into a building that could hold hundreds of
people.The water was filled up to their necks.Then a power-
ful electric current was sent into the metal flooring and
within a few seconds,all the Jews ,thousands at a time,were
dead!"
*********************************************
So was it Belsen or Belzec, Mr. Smith?
>Without physical evidence -- and what is more, without a plausible
>explanation for the curious lack of such physical evidence
What do you think of as physical evidence, Brian Smith? Tell me, do
you think the Pequot War happened in 1637? The Fort Mystic battle?
What physical evidence of that battle or that war exists today?
> -- I
>seriously doubt the Holohoax story (tm) took place as alleged.
How is it alledged to have taken place?
Mike Curtis
jbel...@sprynet.com
> mvan...@rbi.com (Mark Van Alstine) writes:
> In article <19970720195...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
> fafn...@aol.com (Fafner13) wrote:
>
> > Irma was as much a victim of her times as Anne Frank was.
> This is typical Bellinger Bullshit(tm). As all know, Anne Frank, her
> family, and the van Pels were arrested, imprisoned, deported to Auschwitz
> (where van Pels was gassed on arrival), and then to Bergen Belsen where
> she (and her sister) died of typhus -and the privations inflicted upon
> them by the Nazis. One simply cannot deny that Anne Frank was a victim of
> Nazi brutality and cruelty. Ann Frank's plight, unfortunately, was typical
> of _millions_ of other victims.
REPLY: What millions, Mark? How many people, in your
opinion, died from typhus, which killed Germans as well as
inmates>
>
> Irma Grese, on the other hand, _volunteered_ to be an SS Aufseherin. She
> _willingly_ committed the atrocities and crualties she was rightfully
> convicted and justly executed for.
REPLY: What were these "cruelties" Mark. Put your facts where
your mouth is. Describe for us what evidence justified an imposition
of the death sentence, aside from the lies of your hysterical "eye-witnesses"
which are about as credible as the lies told during the Salem Witch Trials.
In fact, I heartily recommend that the reader rent the video "The Crucible"
and see how the Nuremberg verdicts were similarly reached.
Moreover, the distinction between
> _volunteering_ for the SS and being conscripted bears closer scrutiny, as
> some important realities of the proactive and concerted efforts that were
> took by women when they volunteered for the SS. According to Brown:
REPLY: That's nice, but Irma did not volunteer for the SS. She was
placed there by the German Labour Union, or some soch employment
agency. She accepted the position, but her father disapproved. Perhaps
he thought the work too dangerous for his rather petite daughter, being around
so many vicious criminals among the inmates and so on.
>
> <begin quote>
>
> There is a distinction between those women who volunteered for SS
> employement and those who were conscripted into service. In general, women
> drafted during the war were classified as SS-Kreigshelferinnen ('war
> auxiliaries") and they were not incorporated onto the the
> _SS-Helferinnenkorps_ ("The Corps of SS-Assistants"_. To be in the Corps
> of SS-Assistants, a women had to meet and fullfill all the SS recruiting
> standards laid out for the men. As a result, there was a clear delineation
> between those women required to serve the fatherland and those who were
> considered more worthy by virtue of their own commitment.
REPLY: They were "assistants" and not SS per se. And would you have
preferred men running the women's barracks? Sure, so you could regale us
with macabre tales of rape and torture worthy of Men's True Adventure magazine.
>
> [...]
>
> By virtually any standard, the "conditioning" process that the female
> guards underwent was gruelling. Herta Ehlert,
REPLY: Herta Ehlert was a self-serving liar, as I have exposed on a number
of previous occasions. Thus, she is a good "witness" for you.
>
>
> It would be a reasonable estimate that about half of the guards took
> visible pleasure in striking and terrorizing their prisoners, especially
> the weak, ill, and frightened. Others dealt their blows with the
> coearseness and simplicity of a peasant whipping her donkey, some simply
> acted for the sake of conformity particularly in front of their colleagues
> or the SS men. In any case, even the best of them showed mo adverse
> reaction when a prisoner was beaten in their presence.
>
REPLY: unsupportable nonsense.
> ...It seemed that liasons between SS of the opposite sexes were
> encouraged,
REPLY: "Seemed?"
and they lived in a kind of promiscuity some might call
> "primitive," althoiugh their situation was anything but primitive. It
> appeared that all the Aufseherinnen, married or unmarried, had one or more
> constant SS lovers...In addition to the lovers and shop talk, their
> fiversions (especially around solstices and equinoxes) were monsterous
> eating and drinking bouts, after which they were so far gone that men and
> women were unable to recall with whom they had spent the rest of the
> night.
>
> Based on her observations of this bizarre, perverse introduction to SS
> training, the survivor noted a strikeingly close relationship between
> debauchery and cruelty among both male and female guards, but particularly
> among the women
Snip the rest unsubstantiated nonsense
Mike Curtis
i...@usaor.net (Roger Hughes) wrote:
>On Tue, 22 Jul 1997 22:13:05, mi...@aimetering.com (Mike Curtis) wrote:
>
>> i...@usaor.net (Roger Hughes) wrote:
>>
>> >On Mon, 21 Jul 1997 18:55:24, mvan...@rbi.com (Mark Van Alstine) wrote:
>> >
>> >> Survivors Isabella Leitner and Olga Lengyel have documented Grese's
>> >> bisexual escapades, the latter noting that "Grese" often had homosexual
>> >> affairs with prisoners - which was a _major_ violation of the Race and
>> >> Resettlement Act ( a matter of _Rassenschande_) - and then had the
>> >> potential incriminating participants killed. Dr. Gisella Perl observed
>> >> that "Grese" relished whipping well-deloped young woman and the breasts,
>> >> which eventually became infected. Once this occurred, Perl, the inmate
>> >> doctor, would be ordered to operate and Grese would become sexually
>> >> aroused just watching the woman's suffering. No anesthetic was used and
>> >> the victim would scream in agony throughout the procedure. Equally
>> >> sickening testimony was also presented at the Lu"neberg Trial. In laying
>> >> out its case, the prosecution gave the court eye-witness testimony that
>> >> "this 100-pound German girl invented new methods of torture. One of them:
>> >> she waited until a pregnant woman was ready to give birth, then tied her
>> >> legs together and watched the agony.
>> >
>> >You people just never tire of posting this ridiculous crap.
>>
>> Provide evidence that it is ridiculous. _You_, after all are making
>> this claim. Therefor, roger, you have the burden of proof. ;-)
>
>No way, Bucko, the burden of proof is on you. You people are the ones
>making the claim. Under your rules I could easily claim that you
>murdered somebody and I have eyewitnesses to "prove it." Now, you
>disprove that you DIDN'T murdered somebody!
When _you_ call something ridiculous _you_ should have the ability to
show that it is ridiculous. You are making a claim to be a revisionist
so the burden to revise historical events is placed on your shoulders.
I do not need to prove what has already been proven. You however are
tasked with overturning that proof.
Secondly, I am not making the claim. Historians are. So as a
revisionist you have to revise the history that other historians
accept. This means that you must do it using evidence and the
historical method. Could it be that you do not have the tools to do
this?
>> >"Eyewitnesses" to what alledgedly happened in these camps are
>> >notoriously unreliable.
>>
>> Why?
>
>They've been shown to be wrong in so many cases, that's why I demand
>some physical evidence.
What cases? How were they wrong? What physical evidence are you
demanding?
>> > I remember hearing all about Jews being killed
>> >in electrocution chambers, steam chambers, executed by being driven over
>> >with large trucks, etc., etc., ad naseum infinitum - all of it utter
>> >nonsense, and accepted today as exactly that.
>>
>> Accepted by whom? From whom did you "hear" this?
>
>Nuremburg trail testimony.
Site the testimony you have problems with and present to the group how
it was used during the trials.
Roger Hughes
On Fri, 25 Jul 1997 20:55:13, mi...@aimetering.com (Mike Curtis) wrote:
> i...@usaor.net (Roger Hughes) wrote:
> >> >You people just never tire of posting this ridiculous crap.
> >>
> >> Provide evidence that it is ridiculous. _You_, after all are making
> >> this claim. Therefor, roger, you have the burden of proof. ;-)
> >
> >No way, Bucko, the burden of proof is on you. You people are the ones
> >making the claim. Under your rules I could easily claim that you
> >murdered somebody and I have eyewitnesses to "prove it." Now, you
> >disprove that you DIDN'T murdered somebody!
>
>
> When _you_ call something ridiculous _you_ should have the ability to
> show that it is ridiculous. You are making a claim to be a revisionist
> so the burden to revise historical events is placed on your shoulders.
> I do not need to prove what has already been proven. You however are
> tasked with overturning that proof.
>
> Secondly, I am not making the claim. Historians are. So as a
> revisionist you have to revise the history that other historians
> accept.
Hey, I don't give a goddamn who makes the claims. I want the evidence,
since you know as well as I that establishment historians depend on a
paycheck like everybody else, and they all know that they better say the
right things about certain subjects if they want to eat. I don't accept
something just because I read it in some book. Besides, Mark Weber of
the IHR is a historian. He has a master's degree in history from an
established university; graduated with honors. He claims you're full of
it. Of course, you don't accept what THAT historian says! There are many
revisionist historians with the proper credentials, but when you say
"historians", you mean the historians that support YOUR case.
Charles Power
fafn...@aol.com (Fafner13) writes:
>To Mark Van Alstine: I have read your comments about Grese again, and
>will tell you that I have read the transcripts from the Belsen Trial, and
>I found no evidence substantial enough to prove her guilty of anything
>warranting the death penalty. As to Brown, well, that is all Brown's
>opinion, and I will deal with that soon. In the meanwhile, I will say
>that your "evidence" consists of nothing but unsubstantiated libel and
>accusations.
What is your substantiation that any libel is involved?
--
***********************************************************************
Charles R.L. Power ftp://ftp.clark.net/pub/karlpov/
Documents in Envoy format, including the Bible in Esperanto, Doctor Syn
(Scarecrow of Romney Marsh) novels, other neat stuff
Mike Curtis
sbr...@micron.net (Brian Smith) wrote:
>i...@usaor.net (Roger Hughes) wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 22 Jul 1997 22:13:05, mi...@aimetering.com (Mike Curtis) wrote:
>
>>> >"Eyewitnesses" to what alledgedly happened in these camps are
>>> >notoriously unreliable.
>
>>> Why?
>
>Why, you ask? Here's some more "reliable eyewitness" testimony for
>you, Mike, and this one constituted "evidence" (sic) at the Nuremberg
>trials!
>
>" It was in 1942 [at Belsen] that the special electrical
>appliances were built in for mass extermination of people. Under
>the pretext that the people were being led to the bath-house, the
>doomed were undressed and then driven to the building where the
>floor was electrified in a special way; there they were killed. "
>
>IMT VII - p.576-577.
>
It is always nice to see that deniers go back to the same idiocies
time after time after time. When they quote a 'discovery' that might
cast doubt on the Nuremberg trials, they always do it out of context.
Smith's quotation above represents a minute, indeed insignificant
portion of the evidence presented by the Soviet Union. This portion
of the evidence consisting of just under 200 pages was presented by
Chief Counselor of Justice L.N. Smirnov, Assistant Prosecutor for the
U.S.S.R., beginning on page 437 of IMT VII. Two other Russian
prosecutors had preceded Smirnov.
But let us proceed some 130 pages further on to the issue at hand:
"I beg to draw the attention of the Tribunal to the fact that at the
end of 1941 and in 1942 the scale of German fascist crimes committed
in concentration camps reached vast proportions. In particular, I
refer to the report of the Polish Government in confirmation of this
statement. On page 138 of the document book the members of the
Tribunal will find testimony to the effect that in 1942 one of the
most terrifying extermination camps, the Treblinka Camp No. 2, was in
rapid process of erection. The Germans called this 'Treblinka B.'
Further, I refer to the report of the extraordinary State Commission
on Auschwitz. The members of the Tribunal will find the extract which
I am going to quote on page 353 in the document book, Volume II,
second column of the text, Paragraph 2. I quote a brief extract from
Page 257:
'In 1941 the first crematorium for burning the corpses
of murdered people was built in the Auschwitz Camp.
This crematorium had three ovens. Attached to the
crematorium was a so-called *special purpose bath-house.*
That was a gas chamber for asphyxiating people.'
I draw the attention of the Tribunal to the following sentence:
'In the Summer of 1942 the Reichsfuhrer SS Himmler
inspected Auschwitz Camp and ordered it to be greatly
enlarged and technically perfected.'
I end my quotation here, and I call the attention of the Tribunal to
page 136 on the reverse side of the document book; this is from a
report of the Polish Government, which shows that the Camp Sobibor was
founded during the first and second liquidation of the Jewish ghetto.
But the extermination on a large scale in this camp really started in
1943. In the same report, in the last paragraph on page 136 of the
document book, we may read that Camp Belsen was founded in 1940;
but it was in 1942 that the special electrical appliances were built
for mass extermination of people. Under the pretext that the people
were being led to the bath-house, the doomed were undressed and
then driven to the building where the floor was electrified in a
special way; there they were killed."
Oh, oh! Sounds bad, doesn't it?
Well, it isn't. There is not another single mention of electrified
floors or of electrocution of prisoners in the 52 volumes of IMT,
(the 'blue' series); the 15 volumes of NMT, ( the 'green' series)
or the 11 volumes of NCA (the 'red' series). The only mention
of electrified *anything* in these books (except for the Polish
Government-in-exile's statement) refers to electrified fences.
What does this signify? That the brief mention of electrocution of
prisoners made by the Russian prosecutor *was not taken into
evidence* by the court. There being no further substantiation of the
accusation, the charge of murder by electrocution was never made
against any of the defendants. Not so the rest of the evidence.
There are so many citations of murder by phenol injections,
gas chambers, firing squads, hanging, starvation and beating,
that one minor allusion to another form of murder is simply
overwhelmed by the body of evidence for the other forms
of mass execution.
Mike Curtis
Brian Smith
Gord McFee <gmc...@ibm.net> wrote:
>Oh what the hell, Brian, I'll be civil to you for a couple of sentences.
>There is indeed, as has been posted here dozens of times, all sorts of
>physical evidence. The fact that the public is not buying your claptrap
>demonstrates that people with anything approaching an open mind, who
>analyze the evidence, come to the conclusion that the Holocaust occurred.
Er, rather the reason the public is in the dark about the massive
counter-evidence to the holohoax, the Leuchter Report, the recent
findings in the Soviet archives, the perpetual backpeddling on death
estimates, and hundreds of evidentiary discrepancies, absurdities, and
holes in the holohoax story, is simply because the Jewish media has
kept them so -- and deliberately, of course. It is for the public to
formulate its own conclusions as to these media-omitted pieces of
information -- which so far they have not done. One cannot claim the
public has rejected information they have never heard -- or were
permitted to hear -- in the first place. Only a minority of people
yet have even heard of the Leuchter Report, for example.
However, the truth is, of course, that if the public ever WERE
honestly and truthfully apprised of the terminal state the holohoax
story is in, and the ever-growing body of evidence now assembled
against it, the percentage of the public questioning it would
considerably increase, which is precisely why the media is going to
continue hiding it as long as they possibly can. The Jews are going
to keep the fraudulent charade going as long as they can, which will
make people all the more enraged when they finally DO discover the
truth. But even despite the media's blatant and criminal concealment
and the comical "speech laws" criminalizing those who question the
hoax, the word obviously continues to spread unstoppably. Sorry
Nizkook, but you're fighting a losing battle.!
Mark Van Alstine
> > mvan...@rbi.com (Mark Van Alstine) writes:
> > In article <19970720195...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
> > fafn...@aol.com (Fafner13) wrote:
> >
> > > Irma was as much a victim of her times as Anne Frank was.
> >
> > This is typical Bellinger Bullshit(tm). As all know, Anne Frank, her
> > family, and the van Pels were arrested, imprisoned, deported to Auschwitz
> > (where van Pels was gassed on arrival), and then to Bergen Belsen where
> > she (and her sister) died of typhus -and the privations inflicted upon
> > them by the Nazis. One simply cannot deny that Anne Frank was a victim of
> > Nazi brutality and cruelty. Ann Frank's plight, unfortunately, was typical
> > of _millions_ of other victims.
>
>
> REPLY: What millions, Mark?
The twelve million or so killed by the Nazis in the Holocaust.
> How many people, in your opinion, died from typhus....
Hard to say, since starvation, privation, and exhaustion all took their
tolls as well as making the victims supsectable to typhus.
> ....which killed Germans as well as inmates>
And Mr. Bellinger's evidence that typhus killed large numbers of Germans is?
> > Irma Grese, on the other hand, _volunteered_ to be an SS Aufseherin. She
> > _willingly_ committed the atrocities and crualties she was rightfully
> > convicted and justly executed for.
>
> REPLY: What were these "cruelties" Mark. Put your facts where
> your mouth is.
Check DejaNews. I (and others) have posted quite a few of them. They
include beating, clubbing, whipping, attacking prisoners with her dog,
shooting, etc. Not to mention helping select prisoners to gassed to death.
The typical Nazi cruelties.
> Describe for us what evidence justified an imposition of the death sentence...
Go read _The Belsen Trial_. It's all there.
[Nazi ranting snipped]
> > Moreover, the distinction between
> > _volunteering_ for the SS and being conscripted bears closer scrutiny, as
> > some important realities of the proactive and concerted efforts that were
> > took by women when they volunteered for the SS. According to Brown:
>
> REPLY: That's nice, but Irma did not volunteer for the SS. She was
> placed there by the German Labour Union, or some soch employment
> agency.
SS-Aufseherin were volunteers. Grese was an SS-Aufseherin, ergo she was a
volunteer.
> She accepted the position, but her father disapproved. Perhaps he thought
> the work too dangerous for his rather petite daughter, being around so many
> vicious criminals among the inmates and so on.
According to Brown:
<begin quote>
During her cross-examination by Prosecutor T.M. Backouse, Grese was asked
about an incident that occurred shortly prior to her transfer.
Specifically, Backhouse wanted to know about the last trip that
_SS-Aufseherin_ Grese made back to her father's home at that time. Knowing
that her father had absolute disdain for everything associated with the
Nazi movement, Irma Grese returned home clad in her SS uniform. The
prosecutor asked Grese if she didn't tell her father what she had been up
to at Ravensbru"ck and, following a heated quarrel, if he had not turned
her out of her out of his home. Grese simply responded "yes," but there
was actually much more to the matter than merely a difference of opinion
and Irma Grese's agreement to leave. In previous testimony, Irma's younger
sister, Helene, had also been asked about the 1943 homecoming. When
queried as to whether or not her father gave Irma a "thrashing," Helene
said that she "did not see that, but he was quarreling with her because
she was in the S.S." Helene did note that her sister never did return home
again and observers at the Lu"nebrg court proceedings were able to see
that Irma Grese, sitting in the prisoner's dock, was deeply shaken by her
sister's recounting of the incident. During this phase of the trial, a
stiff, defiant, and stoic veneer that grese had held up to thispoint
seemed to be literally stripped away, and in an uncharacteristically
emotional outburst shw wept openely in court. In fact, "she broke into
violent sobbing that left her mopping her red eyes with a handerchief that
hid her face after hearing her sister, Helena [sic], testify as a
character witness in her behalf." Certainly this final break with her
father had had a profound effect on the defendant.
After this unpleasant return to her rural home, Grese returned to
FKL-Ravensbru"ck en route to her new duty station in Poland. Grese had
arrived as a trainee at Ravensbru"ck at approximately the same time that a
new commandnat was appointed, and this marked a distinct turning point in
the camp's history. It has been noted that from the time that Fritz Suhren
assumed command in July 1942, conditions deteriorated, human
experimentation began, and new methods of oppressing inmates further were
implemented. More importantly, FKL-Ravensbru"ck now began to fit into a
more sinister framework - as a place for the elimination of
"_unerwu"nschte Gruppen_" (undersireable groups). Also, after 1941,
_SS-Aufseherin_ were no longer found only at the women's facility, but
they were also now assigned to the women's camps _withing_ the killing
centers in Poland, and with labor shortages now becoming critical,
increasingly they sent out to work details in _Aussenkommandos_, the
so-called satellite camps.
Irma Grese's primary assignments at Ravensbru"ck had been to oversee
_Arbeitkommandos_ (work details). Now, in March 1943, Grese headed east
provided with orders to report to KL-Auschwitz. Grese would continue to
carry out her "mission" - to oppress and murder _unerwu"nschte Gruppen_
for the Reich.
<end quote>
Source: Brown, _The Beautiful Beast_, pp.37-39.
> > <begin quote>
> >
> > There is a distinction between those women who volunteered for SS
> > employement and those who were conscripted into service. In general, women
> > drafted during the war were classified as SS-Kreigshelferinnen ('war
> > auxiliaries") and they were not incorporated onto the the
> > _SS-Helferinnenkorps_ ("The Corps of SS-Assistants"_. To be in the Corps
> > of SS-Assistants, a women had to meet and fullfill all the SS recruiting
> > standards laid out for the men. As a result, there was a clear delineation
> > between those women required to serve the fatherland and those who were
> > considered more worthy by virtue of their own commitment.
>
> REPLY: They were "assistants" and not SS per se...
According to Brown:
<begin quote>
There is a distinction between those women who volunteered for SS
employement and those who were conscripted into service. In general, women
drafted during the war were classified as SS-Kreigshelferinnen ('war
auxiliaries") and they were not incorporated onto the the
_SS-Helferinnenkorps_ ("The Corps of SS-Assistants"_. To be in the Corps
of SS-Assistants, a women had to meet and fullfill all the SS recruiting
standards laid out for the men. As a result, there was a clear delineation
between those women required to serve the fatherland and those who were
considered more worthy by virtue of their own commitment.
...After 1941, _SS-Aufseherin_ were no longer found only at the women's
facility, but they were also now assigned to the women's camps _withing_
the killing centers in Poland, and with labor shortages now becoming
critical, increasingly they sent out to work details in _Aussenkommandos_,
the so-called satellite camps.
Irma Grese's primary assignments at Ravensbru"ck had been to oversee
_Arbeitkommandos_ (work details). Now, in March 1943, Grese headed east
provided with orders to report to KL-Auschwitz. Grese would continue to
carry out her "mission" - to oppress and murder _unerwu"nschte Gruppen_
for the Reich.
<end quote>
Source: Brown, _The Beautiful Beast_, pp.27,39.)
[Nazi drivel snipped]
For those interested in proof of Mr. Bellinger's increasingly irrelevant
Nazi apologia, Holocaust denial, intellectual dishonesty, anti-Semitism,
and outright lies, please peruse DejaNews and visit the Nizkor Project at:
http://www.dejanews.com/
http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/b/bellinger.joseph
http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/b/bellinger.joseph/lies
http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/b/bellinger.joseph/1996/blackmore.0996
http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/b/bellinger.joseph/1996/blackmore.1096
http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/b/bellinger.joseph/1996/blackmore.1196
http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/b/bellinger.joseph/1996/blackmore.1296
http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/b/bellinger.joseph/1997/blackmore.0197
http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/b/bellinger.joseph/1996/tutu101.1296
http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/b/bellinger.joseph/1997/fafner13.0197
http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/b/bellinger.joseph/1996/anyone-out-there-12-1
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--bit right through every human heart--and all human hearts."
-- Alexander Solzhenitsyn, "The Gulag Archipelago"
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Fafner13
> Survivors Isabella Leitner and Olga Lengyel have documented Grese's
> bisexual escapades, the latter noting that "Grese" often had homosexual
> affairs with prisoners - which was a _major_ violation of the Race and
> Resettlement Act ( a matter of _Rassenschande_) - and then had the
> potential incriminating participants killed. Dr. Gisella Perl observed
> that "Grese" relished whipping well-deloped young woman and the breasts,
> which eventually became infected. Once this occurred, Perl, the inmate
> doctor, would be ordered to operate and Grese would become sexually
> aroused just watching the woman's suffering. No anesthetic was used and
> the victim would scream in agony throughout the procedure. Equally
> sickening testimony was also presented at the Lu"neberg Trial. In laying
> out its case, the prosecution gave the court eye-witness testimony that
> "this 100-pound German girl invented new methods of torture. One of
them:
> she waited until a pregnant woman was ready to give birth, then tied her
> legs together and watched the agony.
REPLY: Well, Mr. Pidley, since when can we refer to Leitner and Olga as
ever "documenting" anything except their own sick, morrbid fantasies. I
am astounded that people who actually claim to be intelligent actually
believe this tripe as you posted above. Aside from that, let me ask you
for the corroborating evidence which will prove what these two libellers
allege? Tied hetr legs together, indeed. I guess we will have to add
this to the growing list of holocaust tales from the crypt, where it shall
earn a place of "honor" next to the :
Eyeballs tacked to Mengele's wall
Mengele jumping up and down like a demented Rumpilstiltskin on a pregnant
woman's stomach
Hunchbacks being sewn together at the hump
You people are really depraved.
Fafner13
Mike Curtis wrote in response to the following:
"Eyewitnesses" to what alledgedly happened in these camps are
>notoriously unreliable.
Why?
> I remember hearing all about Jews being killed
>in electrocution chambers, steam chambers, executed by being driven over
>with large trucks, etc., etc., ad naseum infinitum - all of it utter
>nonsense, and accepted today as exactly that.
Accepted by whom? From whom did you "hear" this?
Mike Curtis
Nizkor (USA) - An Electronic Holocaust Educational Resource
Anonymous ftp: http://ftp.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/
European mirror: http://www1.de.nizkor.org/~nizkor/
Nizkor Web: http://www.nizkor.org/ (Under construction -
permanently!)
REPLY: So, Mike, all I want to hear from you is whether you believe that
Grese died a woman's legs together to prevent her from giving birth. Do
you believe it, and if yes, why?
Fafner13
Mike Curtis wrote:
Secondly, I am not making the claim. Historians are. So as a
revisionist you have to revise the history that other historians
accept. This means that you must do it using evidence and the
historical method. Could it be that you do not have the tools to do
this?
REPLY: Which historians? It is THEIR problem if they believe these
fantasies. A person must be considered innocent until proven guilty and
you folks would like to have it the other way around. Sorry, it doesn't
cut it. You are using this material to support your unsupportable
contentions, now, we are calling you to task to provide the evidence, and
it matters not whether you are an historian or not.
Fafner13
h what the hell, Brian, I'll be civil to you for a couple of sentences.
There is indeed, as has been posted here dozens of times, all sorts of
physical evidence. The fact that the public is not buying your claptrap
demonstrates that people with anything approaching an open mind, who
analyze the evidence, come to the conclusion that the Holocaust occurred.
--
Gord McFee <gmc...@ibm.net>
REPLY: Well, you all keep saying that the evidence has been posted dozens
of times, but it seems that the standard of judging evidence between us
differs, along with what constitutes properly accredited evidence. Let's
just take this one little case and stick with the subject and see if what
you write is accurate: Where is the evidence to prove what was written
about Grese tying a pregnant woman's legs together top prevent her from
giving birth?
Fafner13
Gord McFee
In <5r9n0h$qr5$1...@skin01.micron.net>, on 07/25/97
at 08:27 AM, sbr...@micron.net (Brian Smith) said:
:>Gord McFee <gmc...@ibm.net> wrote:
:>>Oh what the hell, Brian, I'll be civil to you for a couple of sentences.
:>>There is indeed, as has been posted here dozens of times, all sorts of
:>>physical evidence. The fact that the public is not buying your claptrap
:>>demonstrates that people with anything approaching an open mind, who
:>>analyze the evidence, come to the conclusion that the Holocaust occurred.
:>Er, rather the reason the public is in the dark about the massive
:>counter-evidence to the holohoax, the Leuchter Report, the recent
:>findings in the Soviet archives, the perpetual backpeddling on death
:>estimates, and hundreds of evidentiary discrepancies, absurdities, and
:>holes in the holohoax story, is simply because the Jewish media has kept
:>them so -- and deliberately, of course. It is for the public to
:>formulate its own conclusions as to these media-omitted pieces of
:>information -- which so far they have not done. One cannot claim the
:>public has rejected information they have never heard -- or were
:>permitted to hear -- in the first place. Only a minority of people yet
:>have even heard of the Leuchter Report, for example.
Probably just as well for Leuchter that very few people have heard of his
report. I take it this is the same person who fraudulently claimed he was
an engineer, lied about his professional qualifications and education, and
lied about work he claimed to have done in prisons where the wardens had
never heard of him? And, on a scientific level, this "gas chamber expert"
has never heard of gas masks? Whoa, Brian, you are going to have to do
better than this.
:>However, the truth is, of course, that if the public ever WERE honestly
:>and truthfully apprised of the terminal state the holohoax story is in,
:>and the ever-growing body of evidence now assembled against it, the
:>percentage of the public questioning it would considerably increase,
:>which is precisely why the media is going to continue hiding it as long
:>as they possibly can. The Jews are going to keep the fraudulent charade
:>going as long as they can, which will make people all the more enraged
:>when they finally DO discover the truth. But even despite the media's
:>blatant and criminal concealment and the comical "speech laws"
:>criminalizing those who question the hoax, the word obviously continues
:>to spread unstoppably. Sorry Nizkook, but you're fighting a losing
:>battle.!
Interesting.
Yet, there are so few of you types that you each have to post under 5 or 6
phoney names.
Mike Curtis
fafn...@aol.com (Fafner13) wrote:
>Mike Curtis wrote in response to the following:
>
>"Eyewitnesses" to what alledgedly happened in these camps are
>>notoriously unreliable.
>
>Why?
>
>> I remember hearing all about Jews being killed
>>in electrocution chambers, steam chambers, executed by being driven over
>>with large trucks, etc., etc., ad naseum infinitum - all of it utter
>>nonsense, and accepted today as exactly that.
>
>Accepted by whom? From whom did you "hear" this?
>
>
>Mike Curtis
>
>REPLY: So, Mike, all I want to hear from you is whether you believe that
>Grese died a woman's legs together to prevent her from giving birth. Do
>you believe it, and if yes, why?
I don't know if she died or tied a woman's legs together. I don't know
if I believe it or not. It's a footnote tale that wasn't at the main
trial. I would probably tell students to read the testimony at the
trial. In a discussion I would tell studients what other survivors had
seen her do. She apparently cut a very big profile to be so remembered
at Auschwitz by so many. Something made her stand out in a camp like
Auschwitz.
What do *I* believe about Grese?
1. I believe she performed selections both at the arrival site and in
the barracks. She admits this in various manners and there are
witnesses who saw her perform this activity.
2. I believe she knew very well about the gas chambers and the fate of
those selected not to work.
3. I believe she beat people severely and to death at Auschwitz.
4. I beleive she shot someone trying to escape the selection process.
There is also testimony that she ordered someone shot.
All of this makes her an accessory to murder if not an actual murderer
of people who were placed in her care. I believe her sentence was
just.
Mike Curtis
Charles Power
fafn...@aol.com (Fafner13) writes:
>allege? Tied hetr legs together, indeed. I guess we will have to add
>this to the growing list of holocaust tales from the crypt, where it shall
>earn a place of "honor" next to the :
>Eyeballs tacked to Mengele's wall
>Mengele jumping up and down like a demented Rumpilstiltskin on a pregnant
>woman's stomach
>Hunchbacks being sewn together at the hump
>You people are really depraved.
No, Joe. The people who *did* these things were really depraved. As are
those who try to ridicule the record of these things with infantile
references to comic books or television shows.
Mike Curtis
fafn...@aol.com (Fafner13) wrote:
>h what the hell, Brian, I'll be civil to you for a couple of sentences.
>There is indeed, as has been posted here dozens of times, all sorts of
>physical evidence. The fact that the public is not buying your claptrap
>demonstrates that people with anything approaching an open mind, who
>analyze the evidence, come to the conclusion that the Holocaust occurred.
>
>Gord McFee <gmc...@ibm.net>
>
>REPLY: Well, you all keep saying that the evidence has been posted dozens
>of times, but it seems that the standard of judging evidence between us
>differs, along with what constitutes properly accredited evidence. Let's
>just take this one little case and stick with the subject and see if what
>you write is accurate: Where is the evidence to prove what was written
>about Grese tying a pregnant woman's legs together top prevent her from
>giving birth?
Frankly, Bellinger, I don't know of any. First let's make one thig
clear to the audience, (if there is one, Gord), that this incident
wasn't used against Grese at her trial. With that out of the way, this
incident become believable if one considers the other things that
Grese did, her position in the camp. her attitudes and statements at
the trial. This incident comes after her hanging. Grese was a pretty
sadistic person according to her own words at the trial. Why you have
this [fascination] to white-wash her I'll never know.
As Dizzy Dean told a batter who had taken so long to situate himself
in the batters box: "You dug your hole and now you are going in it."
Bellinger you are so deep in this hole that I can barely see the top
of your head. Every time you see Grese you must boil over with
indignation and foolishness.
Mike Curtis
Mike Curtis
fafn...@aol.com (Fafner13) wrote:
>Mike Curtis wrote:
>
>
>Secondly, I am not making the claim. Historians are. So as a
>revisionist you have to revise the history that other historians
>accept. This means that you must do it using evidence and the
>historical method. Could it be that you do not have the tools to do
>this?
>
>
>REPLY: Which historians?
Yes, Joe or Brian or whomever can't answer the question asked: Who are
THEY; these establishment historians?
> It is THEIR problem if they believe these
Who are they?
>fantasies.
What fantasies do they believe, Joe?
> A person must be considered innocent until proven guilty and
Of course.
>you folks would like to have it the other way around.
Prove this strawman, Joe.
> Sorry, it doesn't
>cut it.
No, your argument doesn't cut it, Joe, since I asked a question none
of you want to answer.
> You are using this material to support your unsupportable
>contentions,
What are my contentions, Joe?
> now, we are calling you to task to provide the evidence, and
>it matters not whether you are an historian or not.
Evidence for what, Joe. Unless I know what historians are being spoken
about I can't analyze your evidence at all. I can't ask them about
their views or see if they disagree with other Holocaust historians.
So what you and Brian have set up here is an argument without
foundation.
As for Grese, we can say she was a bad person based on her words. If
she did participate in selections at Auschwitz then she was a party to
murder since she knew about the gas chambers. Many alledged she had
beaten people to death. The scope of her crimes and actions were
played out in the Belsen Trial. Quite a bit of her testimony has been
posted in this very group. You didn't have much comment other than to
actually accuse her of lying at times. We'll I agree with you that she
did lie at times.
So Grese's character is based on her own words and the testimony of
others. This includes the testimony of her sister. This also includes
the medical records still available from the time of Auschwitz. She
was not a particularly mentally healthy individual either, Joe. It is
sad to see what Nazism did to some of the youth of Germany.
Mike Curtis
Michael
On Sat, 26 Jul 97 00:12:12, Gord McFee <gmc...@ibm.net> wrote:
>In <5r9n0h$qr5$1...@skin01.micron.net>, on 07/25/97
> at 08:27 AM, sbr...@micron.net (Brian Smith) said:
>:>Gord McFee <gmc...@ibm.net> wrote:
>:>>Oh what the hell, Brian, I'll be civil to you for a couple of sentences.
>:>>There is indeed, as has been posted here dozens of times, all sorts of
>:>>physical evidence. The fact that the public is not buying your claptrap
>:>>demonstrates that people with anything approaching an open mind, who
>:>>analyze the evidence, come to the conclusion that the Holocaust occurred.
>:>Er, rather the reason the public is in the dark about the massive
>:>counter-evidence to the holohoax, the Leuchter Report, the recent
>:>findings in the Soviet archives, the perpetual backpeddling on death
>:>estimates, and hundreds of evidentiary discrepancies, absurdities, and
>:>holes in the holohoax story, is simply because the Jewish media has kept
>:>them so -- and deliberately, of course. It is for the public to
>:>formulate its own conclusions as to these media-omitted pieces of
>:>information -- which so far they have not done. One cannot claim the
>:>public has rejected information they have never heard -- or were
>:>permitted to hear -- in the first place. Only a minority of people yet
>:>have even heard of the Leuchter Report, for example.
>Probably just as well for Leuchter that very few people have heard of his
>report. I take it this is the same person who fraudulently claimed he was
>an engineer, lied about his professional qualifications and education, and
>lied about work he claimed to have done in prisons where the wardens had
>never heard of him? And, on a scientific level, this "gas chamber expert"
>has never heard of gas masks? Whoa, Brian, you are going to have to do
>better than this.
Nice reverberation of the party line on Leuchter but the story isn't
at all as simple as you would have us believe. It took a concerted
effort on the Mossad-Bnai Brith political machine that forced Leuchter
into plea bargaining in a separate matter, if he was to have any hope
for providing for his family.
See Greg Raven's site: "http://www.kaiwan.com/~ihrgreg" for the
complete and unaltered story on Leuchter.
>:>However, the truth is, of course, that if the public ever WERE honestly
>:>and truthfully apprised of the terminal state the holohoax story is in,
>:>and the ever-growing body of evidence now assembled against it, the
>:>percentage of the public questioning it would considerably increase,
>:>which is precisely why the media is going to continue hiding it as long
>:>as they possibly can. The Jews are going to keep the fraudulent charade
>:>going as long as they can, which will make people all the more enraged
>:>when they finally DO discover the truth. But even despite the media's
>:>blatant and criminal concealment and the comical "speech laws"
>:>criminalizing those who question the hoax, the word obviously continues
>:>to spread unstoppably. Sorry Nizkook, but you're fighting a losing
>:>battle.!
>Interesting.
>Yet, there are so few of you types that you each have to post under 5 or 6
>phoney names.
Back to the "phony" names bit? A person would be a fool to post under
their real name with the Mossad-Bnai Brith-Nizkor blacklister
spy/smear types recording everything. Welcome to the 1st Amendment
Nizkor style!!
If there is nothing wrong with it Gord then why did all the jews and
liberals crucify Joe McCarthy? At least he was functioning as a Public
Servant in our government exposing the enemies of America.
natio...@juno.com
Michael
"http://www.natall.com"
National Vanguard Books
P.O. Box 330
Hillsboro, WV 24946
"No man has come to true greatness who has not felt
in some degree that his life belongs to his race."
----Phillips Brooks
Hilary Ostrov
On 26 Jul 1997 00:43:32 GMT, in
<19970726004...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, fafn...@aol.com
(Fafner13) wrote:
>To Mark Van Alstine: I have read your comments about Grese again, and
>will tell you that I have read the transcripts from the Belsen Trial, and
>I found no evidence substantial enough to prove her guilty of anything
>warranting the death penalty.
This does indeed tell us a lot about the extent to which you are able
to read with any degree of comprehension.
>As to Brown, well, that is all Brown's
>opinion, and I will deal with that soon.
One can only hope that by the time you do, you will have acquired the
ability to read with comprehension - and to post with honesty.
(Oh well, hope does spring eternal).
>In the meanwhile, I will say
>that your "evidence" consists of nothing but unsubstantiated libel and
>accusations.
So you say. And you are perfectly entitled to do so. But credence in
your assertions would be significantly enhanced if you had posted
anything here which warranted your "opinions" being given any
credibility.
As it is ... we would do well to remember:
<quote>
REPLY: [...]
I do not think that my personal opinion is important as we are
supposedly discussing historical issues. [...]
</quote>
Source:
From: jbell...@sprynet.com
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Bellinger vs Belling vs Bellinger (could be Belling AND
Bellinger vs Blackmore)
Date: 19 Apr 1997 01:27:54 GMT
Message-ID: <5j972q$la0$1...@juliana.sprynet.com>
hro
=====================
Hilary Ostrov
E-mail: hos...@uniserve.com
WWW: http://users.uniserve.com/~hostrov/
The Nizkor Project http://www.nizkor.org/
Hilary Ostrov
On 26 Jul 1997 00:38:48 GMT, in
<19970726003...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, fafn...@aol.com
(Fafner13) wrote:
[snip]
>
>REPLY: Well, you all keep saying that the evidence has been posted dozens
>of times, but it seems that the standard of judging evidence between us
>differs, along with what constitutes properly accredited evidence.
Sure, B/B/T/F we understand completely. The *only* evidence that
counts is that which *you* have not discounted (because *you* don't
find it credible, or because *your* reality dictates that the
"substantiation" you require ignores the available documented evidence
and testimony).
<insert irrelevant B/B/T/F anti-Semitic off-topic comment here>
>Let's
>just take this one little case and stick with the subject and see if what
>you write is accurate: [...]
Better yet, let's take one little case and stick with the subject.
Provide some citations for your allegations. Oh ... you can't do
that? The books are in your attic? You sold them to the highest
(cash/or cheque made out to J. Bellinger) bidder? Too bad, eh?!
<insert yet another B/B/T/F anti-Semitic off-topic comment here>
John Morris
In <5rb4qo$l...@crack.usaor.net>, on Fri, 25 Jul 1997 17:04:51,
i...@usaor.net (Roger Hughes), aka Bob Dawson, aka Ian McKinney, aka
William Scott wrote:
>On Fri, 25 Jul 1997 20:55:13, mi...@aimetering.com (Mike Curtis) wrote:
>
>> i...@usaor.net (Roger Hughes) wrote:
>> >> >You people just never tire of posting this ridiculous crap.
>> >> Provide evidence that it is ridiculous. _You_, after all are making
>> >> this claim. Therefor, roger, you have the burden of proof. ;-)
>> >No way, Bucko, the burden of proof is on you. You people are the ones
>> >making the claim. Under your rules I could easily claim that you
>> >murdered somebody and I have eyewitnesses to "prove it." Now, you
>> >disprove that you DIDN'T murdered somebody!
>> When _you_ call something ridiculous _you_ should have the ability to
>> show that it is ridiculous. You are making a claim to be a revisionist
>> so the burden to revise historical events is placed on your shoulders.
>> I do not need to prove what has already been proven. You however are
>> tasked with overturning that proof.
>> Secondly, I am not making the claim. Historians are. So as a
>> revisionist you have to revise the history that other historians
>> accept.
>Hey, I don't give a goddamn who makes the claims.
Unless it is a Jew, right?
> I want the evidence,
Then read the historians, and dispute their evidence.
>since you know as well as I that establishment historians depend on a
>paycheck like everybody else, and they all know that they better say the
>right things about certain subjects if they want to eat.
Spoken like a truly ignorant outsider.
> I don't accept
>something just because I read it in some book.
That is a healthy attitude. But what you really mean is that you don't
believe anything written in a book not approved by Chairman Pierce.
> Besides, Mark Weber of
>the IHR is a historian. He has a master's degree in history from an
>established university; graduated with honors. He claims you're full of
>it.
From what I can gather Mark Weber is very bright and has a
considerable command of the historical materials, but he manipulates
and abuses those materials to fit the preconceived thesis he developed
when he was a member of your little goon club, the National Alliance.
A case in point is his misplaced accent on the Roman legal principle
"falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus" which does not mean, as Weber would
have it, that if one witness lies, all witnesses are liars.
Tailoring evidence to fit a thesis is not an unheard of sin among
academics, but most people will alter their theses as the evidence
warrants. Not so with Weber who has raised tailoring evidence to an
art.
> Of course, you don't accept what THAT historian says! There are many
>revisionist historians with the proper credentials, but when you say
>"historians", you mean the historians that support YOUR case.
Many revisionist historians? James J. Martin and David Irving probably
qualify, but can you name any others?
The point, which you seem awfully good at missing, is that the vast
majority of experts in the field disagree with Weber, Irving, and
Martin. I'm talking historians by the literal thousands. With three
exceptions then, we can say that historians support our case.
It is the sad but very pragmatic truth that the one who holds the
novel opinion has the burden of proving his case. As much as
Revisionists like to compare themselves to Galileo, Galileo did not
have to prove his case to the Church but to the tiny but growing
community of scientists. It was because he was able to prove his case
to his peers that he became so dangerous to the Church but it was that
which also prevented the Church from ignoring him or killing him. The
Church did have Giordano Bruno killed for holding similar opinions,
but Bruno fought them on their own turf and could not prove his case
to anyone, because he was a mystic and not a scientist.
The way Revisionists would have to prove their case is not by picking
off peripheral myths about the Holocaust as they have always done;
Revisionists can only prove their case by writing an alternate history
that becomes widely accepted by historians.
Irving has tried to write an alternate history, but don't forget: he
has also laid the deaths of four million Jews at the feet of the Nazi
regime even if he does claim that it wasn't Hitler's fault.
--
John Morris <John....@UAlberta.CA>
at University of Alberta <Scripture veteris capiunt exempla futuri>
--
The Nizkor Project is at http://www.nizkor.org/
Chuck Ferree
Chuck Ferree wrote:
Michael will post garbage under any heading...this one being Irma Grese
the SS guard-slut subject matter, yet not a word about poor lil Irma.
Mischel, is so hung up on Jewish power, and so fearful for his country
that he digs up old Joe McCarthy, long dead and mostly forgotten, Joe
McCarthy who claimed everybody was a commie pinko, and waved blank
sheets of paper around in Senate hearings shouting: "I hold here in my
hand a list of known communists employed by the United States
Government." He even included American soldiers, as traitors to their
country. In the end, before old Joe died, he had been totally
discredited, not by any Jewish commie-pinko bunch, but by his fellow
U.S. Senators, and the American people. McCarthy was a crumb-bum bully.
>Yet, there are so few of you types that you each have to post under 5 or 6
>phoney names.
Back to the "phony" names bit? A person would be a fool to post under
their real name with the Mossad-Bnai Brith-Nizkor blacklister
spy/smear types recording everything. Welcome to the 1st Amendment
Nizkor style!!
CHUCK:>>>>Not a fool but a coward. (yeah fools too!)
If there is nothing wrong with it Gord then why did all the jews and
liberals crucify Joe McCarthy? At least he was functioning as a Public
Servant in our government exposing the enemies of America.
CHUCK:>>>>Bullshit, McCarthy didn't expose anybody but himself. People
of the Jewish Faith, are simply not to blame for everything which is
wrong with the world, as Michael and his cohorts would have us believe.
The bigots 0
The truth 100
Chuck Ferree
and thanks, Gord for being civil to Michael, it hurts, don't it!
natio...@juno.com
Michael
Gord McFee
In <33e13885...@news.hollinet.com>, on 07/26/97
at 05:59 PM, natio...@juno.com (Michael) said:
:>>:>Gord McFee <gmc...@ibm.net> wrote:
I wasn't basing anything on a party line. I was basing it on Leuchter's
own words, Michael. I should have known better than to believe him,
though, that I will grant you.
[deleted]
:>>Yet, there are so few of you types that you each have to post under 5 or 6
:>>phoney names.
:>Back to the "phony" names bit? A person would be a fool to post under
:>their real name with the Mossad-Bnai Brith-Nizkor blacklister spy/smear
:>types recording everything. Welcome to the 1st Amendment Nizkor style!!
Of course. Back to the "they're out to get me" line again?
Did you notice I said "5 or 6" phony names? Why so many, Michael? We
know Smith posts under three or four, Roger Hughes under three or four,
you under God knows how many. It wouldn't by any chance be a ploy to make
it look like there are more of you than there really are, would it? Nah!
Roger Hughes
In message <33d994a7...@news.srv.ualberta.ca> -
check.the...@nospam.ualberta.edu (John Morris)Sat, 26 Jul 1997
06:43:31 GMT writes:
:>
:>In <5rb4qo$l...@crack.usaor.net>, on Fri, 25 Jul 1997 17:04:51,:>>Hey, I don't give a goddamn who makes the claims.
:>
:>Unless it is a Jew, right?
Hey, I've read many books written by Jews. I'm reading one right now
called _Stalin Against the Jews_ by Arkady Vaksberg. Also I've been
reading _The Secret War Against the Jews_ by Aarons and Loftus on and
off for 6 months. You probably find it hard to believe, but I actually
seek out books written by Jews. I usually get the best information on
Jews that way. I also read Israel Shahak's latest book. Jews will write
things about other Jews that Gentiles are too scared to say. I usually
don't agree with their thesis, but many of these Jew-authored books are
absolute gold mines of invaluable info.
>
> > I want the evidence,
>
> Then read the historians, and dispute their evidence.
>
> >since you know as well as I that establishment historians depend on a
> >paycheck like everybody else, and they all know that they better say
the
> >right things about certain subjects if they want to eat.
>
> Spoken like a truly ignorant outsider.
No, I just accept the world for what it is, and allow for human nature.
>
> > I don't accept
> >something just because I read it in some book.
>
> That is a healthy attitude. But what you really mean is that you don't
> believe anything written in a book not approved by Chairman Pierce.
Maybe it will surprise you, but I probably disagree with Dr. Pierce on
several issues. The National Alliance doesn't demand lock-step
ideological conformity, despite what you may think. I've been a member
for over five years, and I think that's long enough experience for me to
make that observation.
> > Besides, Mark Weber of
> >the IHR is a historian. He has a master's degree in history from an
> >established university; graduated with honors. He claims you're full
of
> >it.
>
> From what I can gather Mark Weber is very bright and has a
> considerable command of the historical materials, but he manipulates
> and abuses those materials to fit the preconceived thesis he developed
> when he was a member of your little goon club, the National Alliance.
> A case in point is his misplaced accent on the Roman legal principle
> "falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus" which does not mean, as Weber would
> have it, that if one witness lies, all witnesses are liars.
Ha! Many "eyewitness" stories are concocted.
> Tailoring evidence to fit a thesis is not an unheard of sin among
> academics, but most people will alter their theses as the evidence
> warrants.
And the Jews, with their obvious self-interest in the 'holocaust', never
do that?
> > Of course, you don't accept what THAT historian says! There are many
> >revisionist historians with the proper credentials, but when you say
> >"historians", you mean the historians that support YOUR case.
>
> Many revisionist historians? James J. Martin and David Irving probably
> qualify, but can you name any others?
Off-hand, I'd say that best-selling historian, John Toland, obviously
fits. Maybe you don't consider him a full revisionist, but he's
affiliated with the IHR and has publicly praised them. Another one was
the late Prof. Revilo Oliver, although he wasn't strictly a historian by
profession, he was, nonetheless, a particularly brilliant individual
knew how to analize historical evidence and who wrote on many historical
topics. Oliver was a professor of Classics for many years, and was a
recognized expert on Indo-Aryan language, literature and history, and
consequently came to deal with much more recent historical research
tangetial to his formal area of expertise. Nonetheless, some years ago
William F. Buckley grudgingly commented to the effect that Oliver was
one of the most intelligent men he ever knew.
I don't have any IHR literature around or I could name some more I'm
sure.
> The point, which you seem awfully good at missing, is that the vast
> majority of experts in the field disagree with Weber, Irving, and
> Martin. I'm talking historians by the literal thousands. With three
> exceptions then, we can say that historians support our case.
Well we'll see as time passes. However, I think more establishment
historians will start investigating much more critically with regard to
the 'holocaust' once the survivors are all dead and the issue has
cooled-off. There will be doubtless, I estimate, re-evaluations to the
detriment of the 'holocaust' promoters as the years go by.
> The way Revisionists would have to prove their case is not by picking
> off peripheral myths about the Holocaust as they have always done;
> Revisionists can only prove their case by writing an alternate history
> that becomes widely accepted by historians.
Don't forget that the 'holocaust' is intertwined with politics to such a
degree it's nearly impossible to separate the two. It's not purely
historical. The Jews obviously use it for political purposes. I think
Alfred Lillienthal pretty well exposes that in the _Zionist Connection_.
The Jews can't expect to have it both ways.
> Irving has tried to write an alternate history, but don't forget: he
> has also laid the deaths of four million Jews at the feet of the Nazi
> regime even if he does claim that it wasn't Hitler's fault.
Politically, blaming Hitler is absolutely necessary to provide the
ideological support for many leftist false paradigms. Many essential
elements of the philosophy necessary for the re-emergence of sanity on
racial matters hinge on destroying the props which provide the implied
moral imperative to the anti-White forces. Destructive Jews and their
leftist collaborators have linked all manifestations of a White racial
imperative to Hitler gassing 6 million Jews - even when such
manifestations are not based on National Socialism. So if you want to
blame anyone for 'holocaust' revisionism, blame those people. Anyway, I
make no pretensions that my particular aim is to neutralize the
propaganda use of the 'holocaust.' Fortunately, there have been so many
wild stories which have been deliberately spread, that debunking
significant segments of the 'holocaust' is not all that hard. And, as
I've said before, even if every wild story and absurd "eye-witness"
testimony were true, the political use of the 'holocaust' must still be
regarded as a malevolent manifestation of leftist/anti-White pathology,
and thus neutralized at all cost.
If the Zionist and leftist Jews want to use the 'holocaust' as political
weapon, then they should be prepared to defend it as such.
Regards,
Roger Hughes
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Towards a New Consciousness; a New Order; a New People
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
http://www.natall.com
http://www.natvan.com
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Roger's Page http://www.usaor.net/users/ipm/
Keep It White Because You Know It's Right!
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Abusive emails will be posted to the Usenet and ridiculed.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Fafner13
Mr. Power, you are entitled to your opinions, however ridiculous, but if
you are claiming that the nonsense I referred to should be accepted as a
fact, then I suggest that you provide some convincing proof for it, and
not expect people to buy into obvious absurdities simply because some
"survivor" tells us it happened. God, get in the real world. If you
seriously expect people to believe this obvious tripe, and if you yourself
honestly believe it, you ought to seek professional help.
Fafner13
TO Mike Curtis:
I did not mention these "historians"-you did. However, referring to the
subject at hand, namely Grese, I am of the opinion that not enough
convincing evidence was offered to warrant an imposition of the death
penalty. That has always been my contention. If you have anything else
to offer in the line of convincing evidence to support this opinion,
please post it. The testimony of Grese's sister is not particularly
relevant IMHO. And I have to say that not all National Socialists were
evil. I don't believe people should be judged in that manner. There were
left wing factions of the National Socialist movement, as you well know.
Surely you have not forgotten the Strasser brothers?
Fafner13
TO Mike Curtis:
I am not "white-washing" Miss Grese, as you put it. I do NOT find the
incident referred to as being credible, and I must get a completely
different impression of Grese's testimony than you do, but I can not for
the life of me figure out why......I am able to find nothing in the
transcripts which would support the opinion you stated in your post. I do
not feel that she deserved the death penalty. She was prohibitively young
and under orders from superiors, as well as being thrown into an extremely
hostile environment. Weighing in at only 100 pounds, she weighed much
less than many of the inmates, and I find it incredible that this little
waif actually beat people to death with a makeshift cellophane whip.
There is no evidence that this is true, and I do not believe the
testimony, and that is all there is to it. I am perplexed as to why you
all insist on maintaining these obvious fabrications and lending them your
full support. What is your purpose? WHY do you do it? What is it you
think you have to gain by doing so?
Fafner13
To Mike Curtis: I have read your opinions as to why you think Grese's
sentence was just and you are entitled toit, of course. But WHERE and
WHAT is your evidence? Eyewitness testimony? What else to you have to
offer? Grese never stated that she beat or shot anyone to death, and that
is higly unlikely, considring her position as a mere Aufseherin. She was
probably remembered because of her beauty, if anything. I have posted so
much incredible testimony about this woman that I believe that most if not
all of what the survivors have said about her is pure bunk. She never saw
a "gas chamber" but admitted to only "hearing" of it. This is nonsense.
In any event, she was certainly powerless to change anything, even if
there WAS a gas chamber. I cannot see any justification for imposing the
death penalty on this girl, other than spite and revenge.
Fafner13
TO MArk Van Alstine: You know, you keep posting that remark of mine
concerning my personal opinion, which I will point out was taken out of
context and does not apply to what we are discussing. Ms Ostrov had asked
me for my opinion about the Jews in some capacity or other, or race, I
don't really remember, but that personal opinion had nothing to do with
the larger historical context of the subject under discussion. I would
advise you to switch to a new track on this one. Assuredly, you can do
better, can't you?
Fafner13
TO Gord McFee:
In response to your question about Dr. Perl seducing Irma Grese, what
evidence is there to prove Perl's contention that Ms Grese was having an
orgasm while observing the lancing of an abcess? Get a gripon reality,
Gord...what I wrote was what I intended and thought was an obvious satire
on Dr. Perl's nonsense.
Mike Curtis
fafn...@aol.com (Fafner13) wrote:
>TO Mike Curtis:
>
>I did not mention these "historians"-you did.
No, Roger Hughes did. You came into the discussion so I thought you
might have something to add.
> However, referring to the
>subject at hand, namely Grese, I am of the opinion that not enough
>convincing evidence was offered to warrant an imposition of the death
>penalty. That has always been my contention.
That's been your contention but you fail to substantiate your
contention. <shrug>
> If you have anything else
>to offer in the line of convincing evidence to support this opinion,
>please post it.
I have and you ignored it. I'll post it again here rather than ask you
to go to Dejanews or some other place:
> The testimony of Grese's sister is not particularly
>relevant IMHO.
Why?
> And I have to say that not all National Socialists were
>evil.
I have never said this, Bellinger.
> I don't believe people should be judged in that manner.
I never said they should be, Bellinger.
Here _some_ of what I posted before:
[From _The Belsen Trial_ pages 250-1:]
[Questioning from Major Cranfield for her defense]
Where did the order come from for what we call "selection parades"?
- - That came by telephone from a RapportFührerin or from
Oberaufseherin Dreschel.
When the order came were you told what the parade was for? -- No.
What were the prisoners supposed to do when the whistle went? --
Fall in in fives, and it was my duty to see that they did so. Dr.
Mengele then came and made the selection. As I was responsible for
the camp my duties were to know how many people were leaving and I
had to count them, and I kept the figures in a strength book. After
the selection took place they were sent into "B" Camp, and Dreshel
telephoned and told me that they had gone to another camp in Germany
for working purposes or for special treatment, which I thought was
the gas chamber. I then put in my strength book either so many for
transfer to Germany to another camp, or so many for S.B. (Sonder
Behandlung). It was well known to the whole camp that S. B. meant the
gas chamber.
Were you told anything about the gas chamber by your senior
officers? -- No, the prisoners told me about it.
You have been accused of choosing prisoners on these parades and
sending them to the gas chamber. Have you done that? -- No; I knew
that prisoners were gassed.
Was it not quite simple to know whether or not the selection was
for the gas chamber, because only Jews had to attend such
selections? -- I myself had only Jews in Camp "C."
Then they would all have to attend the selection for the gas
chamber, would they not? -- Yes.
As you were told to wait for the doctors you would know perfectly
well what it was for? -- No.
When these people were parading they were very often paraded naked
and inspected like cattle to see whether they were fit to work or fit
to die, were they not? -- Not like cattle.
You were there keeping order, were you not, and if one ran away you
brought her back and gave her a beating? -- Yes.
[_The Belsen Trial_ page 251 where Grese is under examination by
her defense council:]
The witness, Szafran, has accused you of beating a girl at Belsen
with a riding crop about a fortnight before the British troops
arrived, and also that at Auschwitz during a selection two girls
jumped out of the window and you shot them while they were lying on
the ground. Is that true? --I never shot at all at any prisoner.
[We find the D. Szafran testimony on page 85 where she is
questioned by the prosecution:]
Whilst you were at Auschwitz did you see any other persons beaten
besides yourself? -- I saw it very often when I was working in
Kommando 103 and we were carrying loads of earth and coal. I have
seen Kramer beat a person so often that I cannot really say how many
times. I have see Grese do it in Auschwitz, and about a fortnight
before the British troops liberated Belsen I saw her beat a girl in
the camp. She had a pistol, but she was using a riding-crop. The
beatings were very severe. If they were not the cause of death they
were not called severe in the camp.
[Then we go to Grese's council crosss-examining D. Szafran on page
87:]
Do you remember telling us that you had seen Grese, No. 9, beating
a girl in Belsen about a fortnight before the British troops
arrived? - - I remember it now, it was in the kitchen. Grese was not
the kitchen Kommandant, she came there with the Lager Kommandant on
inspection. She beat the girl with a riding whip made of leather.
If I tell you that at Auschwitz Grese carried a stick and sometimes
a whip, but that at Belsen she never carried either, are you sure
that you are not confused over this incident? -- In Auschwitz she
wore a pistol and in Belsen she went about with a riding whip. She
was one of the few S.S. women who had a permit to carry arms. I
cannot say whether she was wearing a pistol at the time of this
incident. Perhaps it is possible that by that time members were not
allowed to carry arms.
[Then on re-cross of this witness by the prosecution on page 90:]
You said that you could tell us of a good many more instances of
Grese's conduct? -- Yes. In Camp A, Block 9, Blockälteste Ria and
Hoessler and Dr. Enna, the prison doctor, made a selection for the
gas chamber, and two selected girls jumped out of the window and
Grese approached them as they were lying on the ground and shot them
twice. She was always active in the camp gate making inspections and
if any of the prisoners wore another sock or shoe or anything like
that, he or she would be beaten up. I cannot remember with what she
used to beat them because I had to stand at attention.
You have been asked a good many questions about dates. Were you
given calendars either at Auschwitz or Belsen? --No, but I remember
very well because they were so terrible and ghastly.
[Let's go for another at page 251 which happens to be the next
question put to Grese by her defense council:]
The witness Stein told us that at selection in the summer of 1944
some prisoners tried to hide, but that you saw them, told somebody,
and a woman was shot. It was suggested that the woman was shot by an
S.S. man on guard. Had you any authority to issue orders to an S.S.
guard? -- No.
The same witness alleged there was an incident when a mother was
talking to her daughter over the wire between two compounds, that you
arrived on a bicycle and beat the mother so severely that she was
lying on the ground where you kicked her? -- I do not deny that I
beat her, but I did not beat her until she fell to the ground, and I
did not kick her either.
[Let's go back to Ilona Stein's evidence and her cross-examination
by Grese's council on page 99-100:]
With regard to the incident you described of a woman being shot
when trying to escape from a selection parade in Auschwitz, was she
a Hungarian? -- Yes.
You described an incident when Grese arrived on a bicycle and beat
another woman. did she beat her with her belt? -- I do not know
exactly what was in her hands, but I did see that she had something
in them. I do remember, however, that I have seen Grese taking off
her belt and beating prisoners with it.
Was the body taken away on a stretcher by hand or was it taken away
by something on wheels? -- when somebody died, which happened in very
many cases, he was simply put into a blanket and dragged away.
Have you ever been beaten by Grese yourself? -- No, not in the
kitchen where I was working, but once when I was out on a working
party Grese saw me talking to somebody through the barbed wire and
she immediately started beating me.
Did you see Grese beating a great many people a great many times at
both camps? -- I saw her more frequently doing this in Auschwitz than
in Belsen.
Was the reason you only had this one beating from her because you
behaved yourself well? -- I had not very great contact with her
because, working in the kitchen, we were rather separated.
[Let's go to page 747 for I. Stein's Deposition:]
2. Whilst I was at Birkenau an S.S. woman named Irma Grese was
resposible form many beatings, one murder and sending people to the
gas chamber. I identify No. 2 on photograph Z/4/2 as Irma Grese. What
I speak of I speak of to my own knowledge.
3. In July, 1944, I was working in the kitchen at Birkenau when I
saw a woman, whose daughter was in an ajoining camp, go to the
dividing wire in order to speak to her daughter. Grese, who was
passing on a bicycle, immediatelygot off, took off her leather belt
and beat the woman with it. She also beat her on the face and head
with her fists, and when the woman fell to the ground she trampled
on her. The woman's face became swollen and blue. A friend of the
woman's daughter took her away and the woman was in the hospital
for three weeks suffering from the effectrs of the beating. I saw
everything myself that Grese did to this victim.
4. Whilst at Birkenau I have seen Grese making selections with Dr.
Mengele of people to be sent to the gas chamber. On these parades
Grese herself chose the people to be killed in this way. In one
selection about August, 1944, there were between 2000 and 3000
selected. At this selection Grese and Mengele were responsible for
selecting those for the gas chamber. People chosen would sometimes
sneak away from the line and hide themselves under their beds. Grese
would go and find them, beat them until they collapsed and then drag
them back into line again. I have seen everything I describe. It was
general knowledge in this camp that persons selected in this way went
to the gas chamber.
5. Sometime in August or September 194, at one of these selection
parades, one Hungarian woman who had been selected tried to escape
from the line and join her daughter in another line which was for
those not chosen. Grese noticed this and ordered one of the S.S.
guards to shoot the woman, which he did. I did not hear the order,
but saw Grese speak to the guard and he shot at once. In the company
of some nurses from the hospital I took the dead body to the
mortuary.
Later under prosecution questioning by Col. Backhouse:
[page 256 of _The Belsen Trial_]
You affected heavy top-boots and you liked to walk around with a
revolver strapped on your waist and a whip in your had, did you not?
-- I did not like it.
You thought it very clever to have a whip made in the factory and
even when the Kommandant told you to stop using it you went on, did
you not? -- Yes.
What was this whip really made of? -- Cellophane paper plaited like
a pigtail. It was translucent like white glass.
The type of whip you would use for a horse? -- Yes.
Then most of these prisoners who said they saw you carrying a
riding whip were not far wrong, were they? -- No, they were not
wrong.
Did the other Aufseherinnen have these whips made too? -- No.
It was just your bright idea? -- Yes.
In Lager "C" you used to carry a walking-stick, too, and sometimes
you beat people with the whip and sometimes with the stick? -- Yes.
Were you allowed to beat people? -- No.
So it was not a question of having orders from your superiors to do
it. You did this against orders, did you? -- Yes.
Were you the only person who beat prisoners against regulations? --
I do not know.
Did you ever see anyone else beat prisoners? -- Yes.
Did you sometimes get orders to do so? -- No.
Did you give orders to other Aufseherinnen working under you to
beat prisoners? -- Yes.
Had you the right to give such authorization? -- No.
Mike Curtis
Mike Curtis
i...@usaor.net (Roger Hughes) wrote:
>> Tailoring evidence to fit a thesis is not an unheard of sin among
>> academics, but most people will alter their theses as the evidence
>> warrants.
>
>And the Jews, with their obvious self-interest in the 'holocaust', never
>do that?
Of course, you have some examples?
>> > Of course, you don't accept what THAT historian says! There are many
>> >revisionist historians with the proper credentials, but when you say
>> >"historians", you mean the historians that support YOUR case.
>>
>> Many revisionist historians? James J. Martin and David Irving probably
>> qualify, but can you name any others?
I don't know Martin, but Irving is not an academic historian and never
ever was. He doesn't fit the profile.
>Off-hand, I'd say that best-selling historian, John Toland, obviously
>fits. Maybe you don't consider him a full revisionist, but he's
>affiliated with the IHR and has publicly praised them.
John Toland is not an academic historian and therefore doesn't fit the
profile. I do see he has a new book out. He seems to be doing pretty
well.
>I don't have any IHR literature around or I could name some more I'm
>sure.
You've failed badly so far.
>> The point, which you seem awfully good at missing, is that the vast
>> majority of experts in the field disagree with Weber, Irving, and
>> Martin. I'm talking historians by the literal thousands. With three
>> exceptions then, we can say that historians support our case.
>
>Well we'll see as time passes. However, I think more establishment
>historians will start investigating much more critically with regard to
>the 'holocaust' once the survivors are all dead and the issue has
>cooled-off. There will be doubtless, I estimate, re-evaluations to the
>detriment of the 'holocaust' promoters as the years go by.
What are they supposed to investigate? What documents ar they supposed
to use? Why are you having so much trouble getting them to come to
your conclusions? Could it be that you do not have the evidnece?
Mike Curtis
Fafner13
Here are a few other reivisionist historians:
1. Charles App
2. AJP Taylor
3. Charles Tansil
4. Austin App
We can continue to add to this if you wish, but it will prove nothing from
a Nizkook point of view.. And, yes, I regard Toland to be a revisionist
historian as well. It seems that any historian who attempts to discuss
the second world war with a more balanced point of view is deemed by
Nizkooks as non-credible, but this is predictable and quite par for the
course as Nizkooks go.
Fafner13
To Michael Curtis: I have read through the testimony (again) which you
kindly posted for us, and thank you for doing so, but I do not see where
any of this testimony proves that Ms Grese was guilty of anyone's murder.
If you REALLY think it does so, then I cannot change your mind for you.
That will have to be done from within. Speaking for myself, I am not
particularly impressed nor convinced by that testimony, especially when a
young lady's life and reputation was and still is at stake. Let's face
it, many attempts have been made to "rehabilitate" many Jews who have been
accused of crimes in the past, with greater or lesser degrees of success.
I believe Grese's case deserves a rehearing and that she, too, along with
her survivng family members, are entitled to this hearing, along with the
complete rehabilitation of their sibling's character and reputation.
Another case I have focused on in the past is that of Josef Kramer, but we
need not begin another discussion on that case right now.
I am not convinced of the allegations that a petite 100 lb woman would
have the strength to beat people to death, and then not even have to write
up an incident report, when we know that even the most minor offenses
committed by inmates in the camps had to be written up by a guard, and
reported to the commandant, who then had to send the reports on to Berlin.
Also, I have caught Ms Perl in another lie, in that she referred to Ms
Grese as the highest female SS official in the camp. She was merely an
Aufseherin......There were Oberaufseherinin, who were her superiors.
And Ms Grese's comments about the "gas chambers" are confused and highly
contradictory. Rumors by prisoners simply do not count as evidence. Miss
Grese never witnessed an actual gassing nor did she ever even see the
alleged gas chamber. And if there WAS one, speaking strictly
hypothetically, Ms. Grese was certainly not guilty of aiding and abetting
murder, as she was only responsible for rounding up the inmates for
selections to be carried out by other individuals. And who is to say with
absolute certainty that these selected individuals were always euthanized?
Where is the forensic evidence? What were their identities? Where is
the confirmation through death reports and so on?
As to the rest of the testimony, it smacks of simple revenge and spite,
and I have read it and reread it and given you every opportunity of
convincing me that their testimony has credibility, but in all sincerity,
I cannot find any reason for believing the witnesses you provided for our
scrutiny.
It is still my contention that this girl did not deserve the imposition of
the death penalty based upon what transpired during the course of her
"trial." It all smacks of a hateful, hysterical, feminine witch hunt,
similar to the Salem Witchcraft "Trials" and the crazed, denunciations of
hysterical and vengeful female shrikes. Have you seen the recent movie,
"The Crucible?" If not, I heartily recommend that you watch it, as it is
very similar in substance to the "trial" of Irma Grese....
Gord McFee
In <19970727094...@ladder02.news.aol.com>, on 07/27/97
at 09:42 AM, fafn...@aol.com (Fafner13) said:
:>TO Gord McFee:
What you wrote was filth, in an attempt to obfuscate the fact that more
than one person has claimed that Irma Grese was bisexual and seemed to
derive sexual pleasure from beating young women and then watching them be
operated on. Say that Dr. Perl is a liar if you will, but don't descernd
to the gutter.
jbel...@sprynet.com
> mcu...@inetport.com (Mike Curtis) writes:
>
> What do you think of as physical evidence, Brian Smith? Tell me, do
> you think the Pequot War happened in 1637? The Fort Mystic battle?
> What physical evidence of that battle or that war exists today?
REPLY: Strawman. This was in 1637.
jbel...@sprynet.com
> =====================
> Hilary Ostrov
> E-mail: hos...@uniserve.com
> WWW: http://users.uniserve.com/~hostrov/
> The Nizkor Project http://www.nizkor.org/
>
>>>>
jbel...@sprynet.com
> hos...@uniserve.com (Hilary Ostrov) writes:
> On 26 Jul 1997 00:38:48 GMT, in
> <19970726003...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, fafn...@aol.com
> (Fafner13) wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> >
> >REPLY: Well, you all keep saying that the evidence has been posted dozens
> >of times, but it seems that the standard of judging evidence between us
> >differs, along with what constitutes properly accredited evidence.
>
> Sure, B/B/T/F we understand completely. The *only* evidence that
> counts is that which *you* have not discounted (because *you* don't
> find it credible, or because *your* reality dictates that the
> "substantiation" you require ignores the available documented evidence
> and testimony).
>
> <insert irrelevant B/B/T/F anti-Semitic off-topic comment here>
>
> >Let's
> >just take this one little case and stick with the subject and see if what
> >you write is accurate: [...]
>
> Better yet, let's take one little case and stick with the subject.
> Provide some citations for your allegations. Oh ... you can't do
> that? The books are in your attic? You sold them to the highest
> (cash/or cheque made out to J. Bellinger) bidder? Too bad, eh?!
>
> <insert yet another B/B/T/F anti-Semitic off-topic comment here>
>
> =====================
> Hilary Ostrov
> E-mail: hos...@uniserve.com
> WWW: http://users.uniserve.com/~hostrov/
> The Nizkor Project http://www.nizkor.org/
>
>>>>
jbel...@sprynet.com
> kar...@clark.net (Charles Power) writes:
> fafn...@aol.com (Fafner13) writes:
>
> >To Mark Van Alstine: I have read your comments about Grese again, and
> >will tell you that I have read the transcripts from the Belsen Trial, and
> >I found no evidence substantial enough to prove her guilty of anything
> >opinion, and I will deal with that soon. In the meanwhile, I will say
> >that your "evidence" consists of nothing but unsubstantiated libel and
> >accusations.
>
> --
> ***********************************************************************
> Charles R.L. Power ftp://ftp.clark.net/pub/karlpov/
> Documents in Envoy format, including the Bible in Esperanto, Doctor Syn
> (Scarecrow of Romney Marsh) novels, other neat stuff
>
>>>>
jbel...@sprynet.com
Mike Curtis
jbel...@sprynet.com wrote:
A strawman, Bellinger, is an argument without basis of fact. So what
I was getting to, and I suspect you know, is that there is very little
physical evidence of the Pequot War of 1637 available today. Yet it is
taught in schools as fact. Since this alledged battle was fought by
New England Colonials and other Indian Tribes and was responsible more
killing off most of the Pequots, I thought it fit well. There is no
more evidence today other than about 5 or 7 books written by
participants along with letters and court records from the colonies
involved. I was asking the white national if he accepted the
historical fact of that war. Now I'll ask you if you accept the fact
of that war. Do you?
One of your favorites is Salem. How do you know the trials really
occurred in 1692. What evidence is there for those trials having taken
place?
Mike Curtis
Nizkor (USA) - An Electronic Holocaust Educational Resource
Anonymous ftp: http://ftp.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/
European mirror: http://www1.de.nizkor.org/~nizkor/
Nizkor Web: http://www.nizkor.org/ (Under construction - permanently!)
Mike Curtis
fafn...@aol.com (Fafner13) wrote:
>TO Mike Curtis:
>
>I am not "white-washing" Miss Grese, as you put it. I do NOT find the
>incident referred to as being credible, and I must get a completely
>different impression of Grese's testimony than you do, but I can not for
>the life of me figure out why.....
Maybe if you participate in a disccussion of this we can find out.
Much of her testimony is on Nizkor straight from the Belsen Trial. I
figure you sold the copy you used to have since you do not refer to it
any more.
>.I am able to find nothing in the
>transcripts which would support the opinion you stated in your post.
What's my opinion? What do you not find that I haven't backed up? Why
don't you stop snipping away stuff you are commenting upon?
> I do
>not feel that she deserved the death penalty.
Good for you. so what? Make a case.
> She was prohibitively young
>and under orders from superiors,
And she gave orders of her own. She testified that she did. She also
testified that she violated orders from superiors.
> as well as being thrown into an extremely
>hostile environment.
Which environment was this? I recall she volunteered for her
positions.
> Weighing in at only 100 pounds, she weighed much
>less than many of the inmates,
Guns, whips, dogs and whatever else add to her weight. How much she
weighed is pretty pointless. The Dorchester(?) Ripper was pretty light
also, I understand, yet he did away with several innocent women.
> and I find it incredible that this little
>waif actually beat people to death with a makeshift cellophane whip.
Cellophane cuts. But then you can prove this conjecture on what basis?
>There is no evidence that this is true, and I do not believe the
>testimony,
Despite the several witnesses saying the same thing and Grese
admitting much of what they claimed herself?!? C'mon, Bellinger, yu
are grasping at straws.
> and that is all there is to it.
Because you say so?
> I am perplexed as to why you
>all insist on maintaining these obvious fabrications and lending them your
>full support.
Provide evidence that they are fabrications.
> What is your purpose? WHY do you do it? What is it you
>think you have to gain by doing so?
I gain nothing personally other than the satisfaction that people may
learn to evaluate evidence historically. They can judge what I present
vs. the emptiness you present and they can then come to conclusions.
It's that simple.
Mike Curtis
fafn...@aol.com (Fafner13) wrote:
>Here are a few other reivisionist historians:
>
>1. Charles App
I'll have to look him up.
>2. AJP Taylor
One historian finally. What is his revisionism, exactly?
>3. Charles Tansil
Heard of him, but not sure what his credentials are.
>4. Austin App
"...Austin J. App, a professor of English at the University of
Scranton and LaSalle College, also played a central role in the
development of Holocaust denial, especially in the United States.
Though not as prominent as Barnes, he was far more virulent and
began explicitly denying the Holocaust within a few years after the
war. By the late 1950s he was not only writing to the Catholic
_Brooklyn Tablet_ offering 'proof' that the figure of six million
was a 'bloated libel,' but was appearing before varied audiences
accusing Jews of perpetuating a massive hoax."
Austin App was not a historian.
>We can continue to add to this if you wish, but it will prove nothing from
>a Nizkook point of view.. And, yes, I regard Toland to be a revisionist
>historian as well.
Good for you. He not an academic historian either.
> It seems that any historian who attempts to discuss
>the second world war with a more balanced point of view is deemed by
>Nizkooks as non-credible, but this is predictable and quite par for the
>course as Nizkooks go.
What constitutes a more balanced view?
Mark Van Alstine
In article <19970726002...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
fafn...@aol.com (Fafner13) wrote:
> > Survivors Isabella Leitner and Olga Lengyel have documented Grese's
> > bisexual escapades, the latter noting that "Grese" often had homosexual
> > affairs with prisoners - which was a _major_ violation of the Race and
> > Resettlement Act ( a matter of _Rassenschande_) - and then had the
> > potential incriminating participants killed. Dr. Gisella Perl observed
> > that "Grese" relished whipping well-deloped young woman and the breasts,
> > which eventually became infected. Once this occurred, Perl, the inmate
> > doctor, would be ordered to operate and Grese would become sexually
> > aroused just watching the woman's suffering. No anesthetic was used and
> > the victim would scream in agony throughout the procedure. Equally
> > sickening testimony was also presented at the Lu"neberg Trial. In laying
> > out its case, the prosecution gave the court eye-witness testimony that
> > "this 100-pound German girl invented new methods of torture. One of
> them:
> > she waited until a pregnant woman was ready to give birth, then tied her
> > legs together and watched the agony.
>
>
> REPLY: Well, Mr. Pidley, since when can we refer to Leitner and Olga as
> ever "documenting" anything except their own sick, morrbid fantasies. I
> am astounded that people who actually claim to be intelligent actually
> believe this tripe as you posted above.
Translation: Whaaa! I have no cogent rebuttal, so I will slander the
eyewitnesses!
> Aside from that, let me ask you for the corroborating evidence which will
> prove what these two libellers allege?
Aside from the fact that, for example, that two _independant eyewitnesses_
"have documented Grese's bisexual escapades"? That kind of corroboration?
> ...Tied hetr legs together, indeed.
Does Mr. Bellinger suggest it is somehow physically impossible to tie the
legs of a pregmant women together?
> I guess we will have to add this to the growing list of holocaust tales from
> the crypt, where it shall earn a place of "honor" next to the :
>
> Eyeballs tacked to Mengele's wall
Citation?
> Mengele jumping up and down like a demented
> Rumpilstiltskin on a pregnant woman's stomach
Citation?
> Hunchbacks being sewn together at the hump
Citation?
> You people are really depraved.
Rather, Mr. Bellinger is getting desperate in his anti-Semitic lying
scumbag Nazi apologia.
For those interested in proof of Mr. Bellinger's increasingly irrelevant
Nazi apologia, Holocaust denial, intellectual dishonesty, anti-Semitism,
and outright lies, please peruse DejaNews and visit the Nizkor Project at:
http://www.dejanews.com/
http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/b/bellinger.joseph
http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/b/bellinger.joseph/lies
http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/b/bellinger.joseph/1996/blackmore.0996
http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/b/bellinger.joseph/1996/blackmore.1096
http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/b/bellinger.joseph/1996/blackmore.1196
http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/b/bellinger.joseph/1996/blackmore.1296
http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/b/bellinger.joseph/1997/blackmore.0197
http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/b/bellinger.joseph/1996/tutu101.1296
http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/b/bellinger.joseph/1997/fafner13.0197
http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/b/bellinger.joseph/1996/anyone-out-there-12-1
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--bit right through every human heart--and all human hearts."
-- Alexander Solzhenitsyn, "The Gulag Archipelago"
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Fafner13
Subject: Re: Irma Grese- Agerman Heroine A slut too.
From: mi...@aimetering.com (Mike Curtis)
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 1997 13:27:05 GMT
Message-ID: <33dc9ca2....@news.jump.net>
jbel...@sprynet.com wrote:
>> mcu...@inetport.com (Mike Curtis) writes:
>>
>
>> What do you think of as physical evidence, Brian Smith? Tell me, do
>> you think the Pequot War happened in 1637? The Fort Mystic battle?
>> What physical evidence of that battle or that war exists today?
>
>REPLY: Strawman. This was in 1637.
>
A strawman, Bellinger, is an argument without basis of fact. So what
I was getting to, and I suspect you know, is that there is very little
physical evidence of the Pequot War of 1637 available today. Yet it is
taught in schools as fact. Since this alledged battle was fought by
New England Colonials and other Indian Tribes and was responsible more
killing off most of the Pequots, I thought it fit well. There is no
more evidence today other than about 5 or 7 books written by
participants along with letters and court records from the colonies
involved. I was asking the white national if he accepted the
historical fact of that war. Now I'll ask you if you accept the fact
of that war. Do you?
One of your favorites is Salem. How do you know the trials really
occurred in 1692. What evidence is there for those trials having taken
place?
Mike Curtis
Nizkor (USA) - An Electronic Holocaust Educational Resource
Anonymous ftp: http://ftp.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/
European mirror: http://www1.de.nizkor.org/~nizkor/
Nizkor Web: http://www.nizkor.org/ (Under construction -
permanently!)
REPLY: Come on, Michael. You are starting to sound like Danny Keren.
Stop these irrelevant, diversionary tatics. Why is it so damn difficult
for you to conceal a point? Are you afraid you will be thought of as a
freier?
Fafner13
>
>>TO Mike Curtis:
>>
>>I am not "white-washing" Miss Grese, as you put it. I do NOT find the
>>incident referred to as being credible, and I must get a completely
>>different impression of Grese's testimony than you do, but I can not for
>>the life of me figure out why.....
>
>Maybe if you participate in a disccussion of this we can find out.
>Much of her testimony is on Nizkor straight from the Belsen Trial. I
>figure you sold the copy you used to have since you do not refer to it
>any more.
>
>>.I am able to find nothing in the
>>transcripts which would support the opinion you stated in your post.
>
>What's my opinion? What do you not find that I haven't backed up? Why
>don't you stop snipping away stuff you are commenting upon?
>
>> I do
>>not feel that she deserved the death penalty.
>
>Good for you. so what? Make a case.
REPLY: You are not that dense. I KNOW that, so why continue with the
diversionary tactics. It is simple as eating a piece of cake. YOU must
make the case. Her trial and the end result was as fair as the Salem
Witch Trial. I refuse to be dragged into long arguments over this issue.
I am not convinced by the evidence at the Belsen Trial, nor by what you
have posted in support of your views here in this NG. I have a right to
this opinion as you do to yours, and I encourage all individuals to read
everything being written on this subject and then ,make up their own minds
as to whether the accusations justified the imposition of a death sentence
on this young lady, based upon what was offered in evidence at the time.
>
>> She was prohibitively young
>>and under orders from superiors,
>
>And she gave orders of her own. She testified that she did. She also
>testified that she violated orders from superiors.
REPLY: The orders I have read that she issued to not support the
imposition of the death sentence. She was only an Aufseherin, there were
Oberaufseherinen above her. BTW, here is another exposed lie of Gisella
Perl's, as she claimed that Grese was the "highest ranking female SS" in
Auschwitz.
>
>> as well as being thrown into an extremely
>>hostile environment.
>
>Which environment was this? I recall she volunteered for her
>positions.
REPLY: Are you suggesting that these camps werre only populated by law
abiding inmates, or there was no overt hostility against the Nazis?
>
>> Weighing in at only 100 pounds, she weighed much
>>less than many of the inmates,
>
>Guns, whips, dogs and whatever else add to her weight. How much she
>weighed is pretty pointless. The Dorchester(?) Ripper was pretty light
>also, I understand, yet he did away with several innocent women.
REPLY: She isn't the Dorchester Ripper. Get a grip on reality. Nor did
she have a dog at Auschwitz. That was Juana Bormann.
>
>> and I find it incredible that this little
>>waif actually beat people to death with a makeshift cellophane whip.
>
>Cellophane cuts. But then you can prove this conjecture on what basis?
RPLY: No, you prove to US that a few smacks from a cellophane whip will
cause death, and then provide the incident reports to verify it.
>
>>There is no evidence that this is true, and I do not believe the
>>testimony,
>
>Despite the several witnesses saying the same thing and Grese
>admitting much of what they claimed herself?!? C'mon, Bellinger, yu
>are grasping at straws.
REPLY: As if two or three liars cannot agree on a story before
hand....Come on, Curtis.
>
>> and that is all there is to it.
>
>Because you say so?
REPLY: Then provide us with hard evidence.
>
>> I am perplexed as to why you
>>all insist on maintaining these obvious fabrications and lending them
your
>>full support.
>
>Provide evidence that they are fabrications.
REPLY: I don't need to. You are accusing her, and agreeing with the
accusations of fabricators.
>
>> What is your purpose? WHY do you do it? What is it you
>>think you have to gain by doing so?
>
>I gain nothing personally other than the satisfaction that people may
>learn to evaluate evidence historically. They can judge what I present
>vs. the emptiness you present and they can then come to conclusions.
>
>It's that simple.
REPLY: Well, then. show some moral back-bone on this issue. That is all
I have ever asked for.
>
>
Mark Van Alstine
In article <33dcbb6b....@news.jump.net>, mi...@aimetering.com (Mike
Curtis) wrote:
> fafn...@aol.com (Fafner13) wrote:
>
> >Here are a few other reivisionist historians:
> >
> >1. Charles App
>
> I'll have to look him up.
Never heard of him.
> >2. AJP Taylor
>
> One historian finally. What is his revisionism, exactly?
According to Dawidowicz:
<begin quote>
A.J.P. Taylor is the historian par excellence who consistantly
deemphasizes values and ideas as motivating factors in human behavior. In
_The Course of German History_, he derided postwar Allied occupation
efforts to "educate the Germans in democracy": "I never understood how
this should be done. Democracy is learnt by practice, not by sitting on
forms at a political finishing-school." But practice grows out of a system
of values and beliefs that, in turn, derive from one's religious and
political culture and are inculated at home and in fact taught in school.
Taylor's disdain for ideas as the substratum of history was modt
conspicious in _The Origins of the Second World War_. There he argued that
"in principle and doctrine, Hitler was no more wicked and unscroupulous
than any other contemporary statesman," though "in wicked acts he outdid
them all." In pushing the notion that Hitler behaved like any other
conventional political leader, Taylor tried to sidestep the question of
Hilter's ideas by describing them as merely the commonplace thoughts of
most Germans, different only because of Hitler's "terrifying literalism"
(the "commplace thoughts" include anti-Semitism). By taking "seriously
what was to others mere talk" - so runs Taylor's argument - by translating
"commonplace thoughts into action," Hilter brought aboiut the Nazi
dictatorship. With this formulation, Taylor evades any historical analysis
of the irrational ideas of race and anti-Semitism that excercised Hitler's
mind. Taylor's contempt for ideas as a motivating force in history
appeared in its most derisive form in a review in which he ridiculed with
evenhanded impariality both the serious and the silly approaches to
Hitler's mind:
Historians have often discussed the background of Hitler's so-called
ideas. They have pointed to geopoliticians and racialist writers.
I see now the true source of Hitler's inspiration. It was Karl May,
a German who wrote thrillers about Red Indians. Hitler always saw
himself in the dramatic role of a Red Indian brave.
<end quote>
Source: Dawidowicz, _The Holocaust and the Historians_, pp.32-33.
> >3. Charles Tansil
>
> Heard of him, but not sure what his credentials are.
According to Lipstadt:
<begin quote>
The most extreme revisionist account of America's entry into World War II,
_The Back Door to War_, by Charles C. Tansill, a professor of American
diplomatic history at Georgetown University, was published in 1952.
Tansill had previously addressed the issue of distorted accounts of
American History when he accused Lincoln, whom he called a "'do-nothing'
soldier; invincible in peace and invisible in war," of having tricked the
SOuth into attacking Fort Sumter and thereby precipitaing the Civil War.
Tansill's book made a strong impression on Holocaust deniers who
energetically promote it and use his arguments as a foundation for their
own. Tansill declared that the "main objective" of American foreign policy
during the first half of the twentieth century was "the preservation of
the British Empire." He linked U.S. entry into World War I with the rise
of Nazism in Europe, the former having resulted in the latter: "Our
intervention completely shattered the old balance of power and sowed the
seeds of inevitable future conflict." According to him this sordid set of
afairs did not end with World War I, and in his view America's entry into
World War II was thus an attempt to preserve, irrespective of the cost,
the "bungling handiwork of 1919."
Tansill set out a number of arguments that would become essential elements
of Holocaust denial. Most have no basis in fact; for example, Tansill and
other revisionist contended that Hitler did not want to o to war with
POland but planned for Germany and Poland to dominate Europe together. If
POland had agreed to Hilter's scheme that it become the chief satellite in
a NAzi orbit, its securioty would have been gauranteed.It was the Poles'
refusal- prompted by promises they had recieved from the British and made
at America's urging -to accede to the Nazi plan that was responsible for
the outbreak of the war. Therefore it was American machinations that were
ultimately responsible for pushing Poland into war and precipitating World
War II. Roosevelt, according to this extreme revisionist poit of view,
played a "grotesque role" in the entire episode by pressing British Prime
MInister Neville Chamberlian to make promises to the POles that could not
be fulfilled. These extreme arguments, which are rejected by virtually all
historians, ignore the fact that Hitler did not intend to make Poland a
satellite but to decimate it and that he regarded the Poles as
_Untermenschen_, less than complete human beings. These arguments also
exaggerate Roosevelt's role in convincing the British and the Poles to go
to war. Stretching existing historical evidence to distorted limits, these
arguments exonerated Nazi Germany and placed responsibility for the war on
the Allies. Not suprisongly, deniers would make them a critical component
of the nexus of arguments that together constitute their world view.
<end quote>
Source: Lipstadt, _Denying the Holocaust_, p.40.
> >4. Austin App
>
> "...Austin J. App, a professor of English at the University of
> Scranton and LaSalle College, also played a central role in the
> development of Holocaust denial, especially in the United States.
> Though not as prominent as Barnes, he was far more virulent and
> began explicitly denying the Holocaust within a few years after the
> war. By the late 1950s he was not only writing to the Catholic
> _Brooklyn Tablet_ offering 'proof' that the figure of six million
> was a 'bloated libel,' but was appearing before varied audiences
> accusing Jews of perpetuating a massive hoax."
>
> Austin App was not a historian.
According to Lipstadt:
<begin quote>
Like Barnes, App was mainly concerned to lift the moral burden of the
atrocities charge from the shoulders of a defeated and divided Germany. On
contrast to Barnes, App had noo independant standing in the academic
world. An active member of various German American groups, App was an
ardent defender of Germans and Nazi Germany. He served for several years
as president of the five-thousand-member Federation of American Citizens
of German Descent, founded in 1945. Though it never reached its membership
hoal of three million, it was part of a successful postwar congressional
lobying effort to allocate a substantial number of the immigration slots
that had been intended for Holocaust survivors to Germans and Austrians.
Born in Milwaukee in 1902 to German immigrant parents, App attended
Catholic University in Washington, D.C., where he obtained his M.A. and
Ph.D. in English literature. AT the University of Scranton, where he
taught from 1934 to 1942, he recieved its faculty medal as an outstanding
educator. He served for a brief period in the army in 1942 but for unkown
reasons was released within a short time after his induction. He
subsequently joined the faculty of LaSalle College, where he remained
throughout the rest of his teaching career. At LaSalle, where he taught
medieval English literature and was known for pronouncing _Beouwulf_, _The
Canterbury Tales_, and other Old and Middle English works in the
origional, some of his students regarded him as a sort of "dry
arrangement" the college kept on its staff to achieve accredidation. They
had no idea of his other activities.
But, completely unknown to his students, App had a far more dubious side.
Ge inundated newspapers, magazines, politicians, and journalists with
letters attacking U.S. intervention in World War II, Allied demands for
unconditional surrender, and the imposition of "Morgenthauism" on Germany.
The latter was App
s way of placing responsibility for all of Germany's postwar problems on
President Roosevelt's secretary of the treasury, Henry Morgenthau. Of
course, Morgenthau's plan was never put into effect. In fact, Allied
treatment of Germany was in the exact opposite of the plan. The letters
were also App's self-described attempt to explode the "lies and calumnies"
that had been spread about Germany since the war and to prevent Roosevelt
and Morgenthau from selling out "Christian Europe to the Red barbarians."
The letters bristled with overt antisemitism and racism. Talmudists,
Bolsheviks, and Zionists, all of whom were inimately connected in App's
mind with one another, were blamed for the evils that beset the worls
after the end of the war. Though few of his letters were actually
published by the newspapers or magazines that recieved them, App kept up a
steady syream of communiques.
Though much of what App wrote can be relegated to traditional, almost
gutter-level anrisemitism, he is nonetheless an important figure in the
development and evolution of Holocaust denial. His major contribution was
to formulate eight anxioms that have come to serve the founding principles
of the California-based Institute for Historical Review and as the basic
postulates of Holocaust denial. Since App posited them in 1973, virtually
all deniers have built their arguments on them. The deniers' tactics may
have changed over time, but their arguments have remained the same.
[...]
The eight assertions were:
1. Emigration, never annihilation, was the Reich's plan for solving
Germany's Jewish problem. Had Germany intended to annihilate all the Jews,
a half million concentration camp inmates would not have survived and
managed to come to Israel, where they collect "fancy indemnities from West
Germany."
2. "Absolutely no Jews were gassed in any concentration camps in Germany,
and evidence is piling up that none were gassed in Auschwitz." The Hilter
gas chambers never existed. The gassing istallations found in Auschwitz
were really crematoria for cremating corpses of those who died from a
variety of causes, including the "genocide" Anglo-American bombing raids.
3. The majority of Jews who dissapeared and remain unaccounted for did so
in territories under Soviet, not German control.
4. The majority of Jews who supposedly died while in German hands were, in
fact, subversives, partisans, spied, saboteurs, and criminals or victims
of unfortunate but internationally legal reprtisals.
5. If there existed the slightest liklihood that the Nazis had really
murdered six million Jews, "World Jewry" would demand subsidies to conduct
research on the topic and Israel would open its archives to historians to
conduct research on the topic. They have not done so. Instead they have
persecuted and branded as an antisemite anyone who wished to publicize the
hoax. This persecution constitutes the most conclusive evidence that the
six million figure is a "swindle."*
6. The Jews and the media who exploit who exploit this figure have failed
to offer even a shred of evidence to prove it. The Jews misquote Eichmann
and other Nazis in order to try to substantiate their claims.
7. It is the accusers, not the accused, who must provide the burden of
proof to substantiate the six million figure. The Talmudists and
Bolsheviks have so browbeaten the Germans that they pay billions and do
not dare to demand proof.
8. The fact that Jewish scholars themselves have "ridiculous"
disprepancies in their calculations of the number of victims constitutes
firm evidence that there is no scientific proof to this accusation.
While all of these assertions are easily controverted by evidence and
documentation, some are based on such faulty reason that their fallacies
can be exposed without even turning to the evidence. As was the case with
Rassinier, App ignored a fundemental flaw in his eighth assertion. If the
Holocaust was truly a fraud perpetuated by the jews, one could
legitimately expect a powerful force like "World Jwry" to have seen to it
that no discrepencies were allowed to creep into research by Jewish
scolars. All their findings should neatly dovetail with and confirm one
another. And if the "Talmudists" were crafty enought to recognize that
precise conformity might arouse suspicion, they would have ensured that
there was only the slightest vcariation among scholars' findings.
But this, of course, is not the only inconsistency in App's arguments. At
the same time thaty he described Israeli archives as playing a pivotal
role in the "swindle," he also used their findings to validate his own. In
an attempt to prove that even Israeli institutions have been unable to
document the number of dead, App cited a statement by Yad Vashem, the
national memorial to the victims in Israel, that it has been able to
gather only 2.5 million pages of testimony.** App argued that if in the
years since the end of the war Yad Vashem had been unable to document even
4 million, it was because there had not been that many. Eventhe 2.
million figures they supplied were nothing but a "a lie and a swindle."
But if Yad Vashem was as App depicted it- an Israeli institution at the
heart of the hoax -it should have no difficulty forging the additional
documentation needed to fill the quotient of six million.
[...]
App's faulty arguments regarding the scholarly disoute about the number of
victims and his use of statements and figures from Yad Vashem to prove his
point were not the only occasions when he became ensnared in his own
attempts to manipulate the evidence. In _The Six Million Swindle_ he also
attacked a journalist who had written that the Nazis wished to kill "as
many Jews as possible" before the end of the war. In order to substantiate
his charge that this journalist was lying, App cited Himmler's fall 1044
order prohibiting any further execution of Jews. This evidence proved two
things: First the Nazis did not wish to kill as many Jews as possible, for
if so Himmler would not have halted the killings. Second, he argued, it
showed that Himmler, not Hitler, was in charge of the jewish policy. In
his attempt to exonerate both the Nazis in general and Hitler in
oparticular by laying the blame for this policy at Himmler's doorstep, App
ignores a basic contradiction in his argument: If there _was_ not a policy
to kill Jews, what then was Himmler ordering stopped?
Here and elsewhere App's approach to evidence is reminiscent of
Rassinier's arguments regarding eyewitness accounts. It is the standard
method by which deniers dismiss evidence which contradicts their
conclusions. All affidavits by Nazis admitting the existance of a Final
Solution are declared "outright frauds," and all testimony by Jews
regarding mass murder is "part or whole perjured, often well rewarded and
altogether unreliable." This blanket denial pf the validity of evidence
attesting tot he Holocaust, including that of eyewitnesses, has become the
centerpiece of the deniers' methodology. SImply put, any thing that
disgrees with their forgone conclusion is dismissed. Because of the sheer
number of affidavits by survivors, perpetrators, and eyewitnesses, unless
the deniers catagorically dismiss this mass of evidence they cannot
perpetrate their own hoax.
Ultimately App's arguments are a composite of faulty assertions,
manipulation of data, and above all, outrioght anti-Semitism. He has done
more than just draw om preexisting antisemitic imagery. He has made a
significant contribution to contemporary anti-Jewish propaganda inthe
United States and abroad. His distallation of Holocaust denial into these
eight assertions, each of which plays on an antisemitic theme, has proven
extremely useful to individuals and groups which not only deny th
Holocaust but wish to portray the Jews as able to control American foreign
policy for their own diabolical ends. It has also proved extremely
efficacious for those whou would delegitimize the existance of Israel.
Together App, Barnes, Rssinier, Barde'che, and Hogan constitute the most
significant figures in the evolution of the denial hoax. Those who
followed them sicarded some of their more blatnt and vulgar arguments,
learning how to render them in a slightly more oblique fashion. But with
the fundemental text established, virtually all the rest would be
commentary.
<end quote>
Source: Lipstadt, _Denying the Holocaust_, pp. 85-87, 99-102.
<begin quote>
* All these assertions are absolutely false. Israel has opened its
archives to all credible scholars and students working in this field.
** A "page of testimony" at Yad Vashem consists of the name and birthdate
of the victim as well as additional biographical information. It is
usually filled out by a surviving relative, friend, or neighbor. Obviously
many people died and did not leave behind any relatives or neighbors who
could perform this task of memorializing their name.
<end quote>
Source: Lipstadt, _Denying the Holocaust_, p.100f.
> >We can continue to add to this if you wish, but it will prove nothing from
> >a Nizkook point of view.. And, yes, I regard Toland to be a revisionist
> >historian as well.
>
> Good for you. He not an academic historian either.
According to Dawidowicz:
<begin quote>
Toland's book [_Adolf Hitler_] is more accomplished [than Payne's
biography of Hitler], yet despite massive research and countless
interviews with countless persons, he has not succeeded in telling (in
over a thousand pages) anything important that we had not know before.
Asking few questions of htorical significance of either his documents or
his living suibjects, Toland approached this book on Hitler, he admits,
without a thesis. The "most meaningful" conclusion he reached was "that
Hitler was far more complex and contradictory" than he had imagined.
<end quote>
Source: Dawidowicz, _The Holocaust and the Historians_, p.35.
> >It seems that any historian who attempts to discuss
> >the second world war with a more balanced point of view is deemed by
> >Nizkooks as non-credible, but this is predictable and quite par for the
> >course as Nizkooks go.
>
> What constitutes a more balanced view?
Evidently, anything that confirms an anti-Semitic lying scumbag Nazi
apologist's world view.
Gord McFee
In <33dcbb6b....@news.jump.net>, on 07/28/97
at 03:34 PM, mi...@aimetering.com (Mike Curtis) said:
:>fafn...@aol.com (Fafner13) wrote:
:>>Here are a few other reivisionist historians:
:>>
:>>1. Charles App
:>I'll have to look him up.
:>>2. AJP Taylor
:>One historian finally. What is his revisionism, exactly?
Since Joe doesn't know, I will tell you. Taylor, in his _Origins of the
Second World War_, posits that Hitler was not hell-bent on war from 1937
on, that the war was as much the fault of the Allies as Hitler, and that
the policy of appeasement that culminated in the Munich Agreement, was a
good thing. He is in fact, a real revisionist, not a phony "revisionist"
like Joe's heros.
Mark Van Alstine
In article <19970728211...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
fafn...@aol.com (Fafner13) wrote:
> >
> >>TO Mike Curtis:
> >>
> >>I am not "white-washing" Miss Grese, as you put it. I do NOT find the
> >>incident referred to as being credible, and I must get a completely
> >>different impression of Grese's testimony than you do, but I can not for
> >>the life of me figure out why.....
> >
> >Maybe if you participate in a disccussion of this we can find out.
> >Much of her testimony is on Nizkor straight from the Belsen Trial. I
> >figure you sold the copy you used to have since you do not refer to it
> >any more.
> >
> >>.I am able to find nothing in the
> >>transcripts which would support the opinion you stated in your post.
> >
> >What's my opinion? What do you not find that I haven't backed up? Why
> >don't you stop snipping away stuff you are commenting upon?
> >
> >> I do
> >>not feel that she deserved the death penalty.
> >
> >Good for you. so what? Make a case.
>
> REPLY: You are not that dense. I KNOW that, so why continue with the
> diversionary tactics. It is simple as eating a piece of cake. YOU must
> make the case....
Er, no. The case was made by the prosecution. Grese was justly convicted,
sentenced, and executed. Is this too hard for an anti-Semitic lying
scumbag Nazi apologist like Mr. Bellinger to comprehend or what?
[Nazi drivel snipped]
For those interested in proof of Mr. Bellinger's increasingly irrelevant
Nazi apologia, Holocaust denial, intellectual dishonesty, anti-Semitism,
and outright lies, please peruse DejaNews and visit the Nizkor Project at:
http://www.dejanews.com/
http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/b/bellinger.joseph
http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/b/bellinger.joseph/lies
http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/b/bellinger.joseph/1996/blackmore.0996
http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/b/bellinger.joseph/1996/blackmore.1096
http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/b/bellinger.joseph/1996/blackmore.1196
http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/b/bellinger.joseph/1996/blackmore.1296
http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/b/bellinger.joseph/1997/blackmore.0197
http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/b/bellinger.joseph/1996/tutu101.1296
http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/b/bellinger.joseph/1997/fafner13.0197
http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/b/bellinger.joseph/1996/anyone-out-there-12-1
Mark
Mark Van Alstine
> fafn...@aol.com (Fafner13) wrote:
>
> >Here are a few other reivisionist historians:
> >
> >1. Charles App
>
> I'll have to look him up.
Never heard of him.
> >2. AJP Taylor
>
> One historian finally. What is his revisionism, exactly?
According to Dawidowicz:
<begin quote>
<end quote>
According to Lipstadt:
<begin quote>
<end quote>
According to Lipstadt:
<begin quote>
[...]
The eight assertions were:
[...]
<end quote>
<begin quote>
<end quote>
According to Dawidowicz:
<begin quote>
<end quote>
Evidently, anything that confirms an anti-Semitic lying scumbag Nazi
apologist's world view.
Mike Curtis
fafn...@aol.com (Fafner13) wrote:
>REPLY: Come on, Michael. You are starting to sound like Danny Keren.
>Stop these irrelevant, diversionary tatics. Why is it so damn difficult
>for you to conceal a point? Are you afraid you will be thought of as a
>freier?
Diversionary? Hardly, Bellinger. You have professed here in this group
to reveiving A's in your college history courses so you ought to
understand the basics of evidence. You should also know the answers to
the questions I'm asking you above. The same scrutiny is used to
analyze this early history as that of the Holocaust. So, I'll ask you
again if you feel that the Pequot War of 1637 happened and what makes
you so sure. Add to that the Salem Witchcraft Trials and what makes
you so sure.
Mike Curtis
Mike Curtis
Mike Curtis
Gord McFee <gmc...@ibm.net> wrote:
>In <33dcbb6b....@news.jump.net>, on 07/28/97
> at 03:34 PM, mi...@aimetering.com (Mike Curtis) said:
>
>:>fafn...@aol.com (Fafner13) wrote:
>
>:>>Here are a few other reivisionist historians:
>:>>
>:>>1. Charles App
>
>:>I'll have to look him up.
>
>:>>2. AJP Taylor
>
>:>One historian finally. What is his revisionism, exactly?
>
>Since Joe doesn't know, I will tell you. Taylor, in his _Origins of the
>Second World War_, posits that Hitler was not hell-bent on war from 1937
>on, that the war was as much the fault of the Allies as Hitler, and that
>the policy of appeasement that culminated in the Munich Agreement, was a
>good thing. He is in fact, a real revisionist, not a phony "revisionist"
>like Joe's heros.
That would seem to be an invalid historical view. Does Taylor argue
against the Holocaust? I don't recall it.
Mike Curtis
Mike Curtis
mvan...@rbi.com (Mark Van Alstine) wrote:
>In article <33dcbb6b....@news.jump.net>, mi...@aimetering.com (Mike
>Curtis) wrote:
>
>> fafn...@aol.com (Fafner13) wrote:
>>
>> >Here are a few other reivisionist historians:
>> >
>> >1. Charles App
>>
>> I'll have to look him up.
>
>Never heard of him.
Good. I found nothing at Amazon.com by him. I trolled the web and
found nothing by him or about him.
>> >2. AJP Taylor
Thanks. I don't see Taylor doing what the deniers are doing, however.
>> >3. Charles Tansil
>>
>> Heard of him, but not sure what his credentials are.
>
>According to Lipstadt:
This must be where I heard of him. I did read Lipstadt's book and the
one you quoted above also.
><begin quote>
>
>The most extreme revisionist account of America's entry into World War II,
>_The Back Door to War_, by Charles C. Tansill, a professor of American
>diplomatic history at Georgetown University, was published in 1952.
>Tansill had previously addressed the issue of distorted accounts of
>American History when he accused Lincoln, whom he called a "'do-nothing'
>soldier; invincible in peace and invisible in war," of having tricked the
>SOuth into attacking Fort Sumter and thereby precipitaing the Civil War.
This argument is still going on, btw.
>Tansill's book made a strong impression on Holocaust deniers who
>energetically promote it and use his arguments as a foundation for their
>own.
I see. So Tansill is not a European historian. I was fooled by
Bellinger's spelling of his name.
> Tansill declared that the "main objective" of American foreign policy
>during the first half of the twentieth century was "the preservation of
>the British Empire." He linked U.S. entry into World War I with the rise
>of Nazism in Europe, the former having resulted in the latter: "Our
>intervention completely shattered the old balance of power and sowed the
>seeds of inevitable future conflict."
There are arguments that can be made if some data is excluded from the
argument. I do know that this history has progressed since Tansill's
book.
[snip]
>be fulfilled. These extreme arguments, which are rejected by virtually all
>historians, ignore the fact that Hitler did not intend to make Poland a
>satellite but to decimate it and that he regarded the Poles as
>_Untermenschen_, less than complete human beings. These arguments also
>exaggerate Roosevelt's role in convincing the British and the Poles to go
>to war. Stretching existing historical evidence to distorted limits, these
>arguments exonerated Nazi Germany and placed responsibility for the war on
>the Allies. Not suprisongly, deniers would make them a critical component
>of the nexus of arguments that together constitute their world view.
Sounds to me like Tansell was a disgruntled isolationist.
>> >4. Austin App
>>
[snip]
>>
>> Austin App was not a historian.
I have one of App's "works."
>
>Source: Lipstadt, _Denying the Holocaust_, pp. 85-87, 99-102.
>
Thanks for the typing, Mark. When you come down to it, App was not a
historian academically.
They still do not have many, if any, academic historians coming over
to the "revisionist" beck and call.
Mike Curtis
Gord McFee
In <33dee310....@news.jump.net>, on 07/29/97
at 01:05 PM, mi...@aimetering.com (Mike Curtis) said:
:>They still do not have many, if any, academic historians coming over to
:>the "revisionist" beck and call.
That's right. I think that much of the reason is that academic historians
tend to be educated enough to be less susceptible to the denier rubbish.
Second, they are trained in the acquisition, analysis and assessment of
evidence, and most people who apply that standard of methodology to the
Holocaust issue will conclude that it occurred. In fact, I would argue
that "revisionism" is anti-intellectual by its nature, and intellectually
dishonest in its manifestation.
Gord McFee
In <33dfeac5....@news.jump.net>, on 07/29/97
at 01:07 PM, mi...@aimetering.com (Mike Curtis) said:
:>Gord McFee <gmc...@ibm.net> wrote:
[deleted]
:>>Since Joe doesn't know, I will tell you. Taylor, in his _Origins of the
:>>Second World War_, posits that Hitler was not hell-bent on war from 1937
:>>on, that the war was as much the fault of the Allies as Hitler, and that
:>>the policy of appeasement that culminated in the Munich Agreement, was a
:>>good thing. He is in fact, a real revisionist, not a phony "revisionist"
:>>like Joe's heros.
:>That would seem to be an invalid historical view. Does Taylor argue
:>against the Holocaust? I don't recall it.
I re-read parts of _The Origins_, and have produced below the only quote I
could find remotely touching on the Holocaust. I suggest it demonstrates
that he did *not* argue against the Holocaust. (I note in passing that
the index of the book describes Heinrich Himmler as a "German statesman"!)
To be fair, I should point out that Taylor is revisionist in the sense
that he takes the available evidence and applies a thesis to it, entirely
in opposition to the prevailing "wisdom". That makes it acceptable as
history as I see it, even though I disagree with his conclusion. I should
add that the *only* issue he really deals with in his book is the thesis
that Hitler wanted a war from the beginning, that everything he did was
inexorably designed to achieve it, and that the appeasers were a bunch of
cowardly, shortsighted fools. He vigorously opposes that thesis. He says
that his opponents jump straight from _Mein Kampf_ to the Hossbach
memorandum to the Table Talk of 1942, and, in many cases, he is right. It
is the overly simplistic view of things espoused by some historians that
he opposes, and, I agree with much of his opposition *in that sense*.
Hitler, and the events, were simply far more complex than some historians
have painted him and them.
That being said, he goes way too far. He rejects the Hossbach Protocol on
flimsy evidence (but so did the accused at Nuremberg, since it was the
main "source" for the "conspiracy to wage aggressive war" count), he
misrepresents (that's the only word I can apply) the sequencing of
Hitler's demand for a Polish plenipotentiary on August 29, 1939, and he
consistently applies the most favorable interpretation to Hitler's role in
events. In this sense, he ends up writing almost an apologia (that may be
too strong a word) for Hitler. Considering that he attempts to take on
two taboos--he writes favorably of Hitler *and* the appeasers in the same
book--it is quite an achievement, flawed as it may be.
In Taylor's defence, it is only fair to point out what he himself says in
the second edition. After saying that he has *not* attempted to vindicate
Hitler, as some critics of the First Edition claimed, he says:
<begin quote>
It seems to be believed nowadays that Hitler did everything himself, even
driving the trains and filling the gas chambers unaided. This was not so.
Hitler was a sounding-board for the German nation. Thousands, many
hundred thousand, Germans carried out his evil orders without qualm or
question. As supreme ruler of Germany, Hitler bears the greatest
responsibility for acts of immeasurable evil: for the destruction of
German democracy; for the concentration camps; and, worst of all, for the
extermination of peoples during the second World war. He gave orders that
Germans executed, of a wickedness without parallel in civilized history.
His foreign policy was a different matter.
<end quote>
[A.J.P. Taylor, _The Origins of the Second World War_, Penguin Books,
Middlesex, 1963, pages 26-27]
I think that quote sums up Taylor's position reasonably well.
Posted and e-mailed.
Mike Curtis
fafn...@aol.com (Fafner13) wrote:
>To Michael Curtis: I have read through the testimony (again) which you
>kindly posted for us, and thank you for doing so, but I do not see where
>any of this testimony proves that Ms Grese was guilty of anyone's murder.
>If you REALLY think it does so, then I cannot change your mind for you.
Then try and convince me and don't assume I can't be convinced. This
is what history is all about. You have to convince others and not
simply throw in the towel as you are doing.
>That will have to be done from within. Speaking for myself, I am not
>particularly impressed nor convinced by that testimony, especially when a
>young lady's life and reputation was and still is at stake.
Read her own testimony along with others and tell show me how prestine
her reputation is.
[snip non-issue]
>I believe Grese's case deserves a rehearing and that she, too, along with
Then make your case with the testimony and other documentation.
Calling people liars on your say so doesn't work.
>her survivng family members, are entitled to this hearing, along with the
>complete rehabilitation of their sibling's character and reputation.
>Another case I have focused on in the past is that of Josef Kramer, but we
>need not begin another discussion on that case right now.
We can do him next.
>I am not convinced of the allegations that a petite 100 lb woman would
>have the strength to beat people to death, and then not even have to write
>up an incident report,
Would she write about that which is against the rules?
> when we know that even the most minor offenses
>committed by inmates in the camps had to be written up by a guard, and
>reported to the commandant, who then had to send the reports on to Berlin.
And these reports are?
>Also, I have caught Ms Perl in another lie, in that she referred to Ms
>Grese as the highest female SS official in the camp. She was merely an
>Aufseherin......There were Oberaufseherinin, who were her superiors.
Grese said she was in charge, Bellinger.
>And Ms Grese's comments about the "gas chambers" are confused and highly
>contradictory.
How so?
> Rumors by prisoners simply do not count as evidence. Miss
>Grese never witnessed an actual gassing nor did she ever even see the
>alleged gas chamber.
Then why did she mark those as selected as not returning. Quote her
testimony. How does this testimony compare with Hoessler's and
Kramer's.
> And if there WAS one, speaking strictly
>hypothetically, Ms. Grese was certainly not guilty of aiding and abetting
>murder,
Selecting those to be killed is not aiding murder? How so?
> as she was only responsible for rounding up the inmates for
>selections to be carried out by other individuals.
She assisted in selections. She knew what was going on.
> And who is to say with
>absolute certainty that these selected individuals were always euthanized?
What do Kramer and Hoessler say aboout this?
> Where is the forensic evidence? What were their identities? Where is
>the confirmation through death reports and so on?
This has been answered before.
>As to the rest of the testimony, it smacks of simple revenge and spite,
Victims shouldn't do that, should they?
>and I have read it and reread it and given you every opportunity of
>convincing me that their testimony has credibility, but in all sincerity,
>I cannot find any reason for believing the witnesses you provided for our
>scrutiny.
Because you say so.
>It is still my contention that this girl did not deserve the imposition of
>the death penalty based upon what transpired during the course of her
>"trial." It all smacks of a hateful, hysterical, feminine witch hunt,
What of Hoessler and Kramer?
>similar to the Salem Witchcraft "Trials" and the crazed, denunciations of
>hysterical and vengeful female shrikes.
How do you know that this happened?
> Have you seen the recent movie,
>"The Crucible?" If not, I heartily recommend that you watch it, as it is
>very similar in substance to the "trial" of Irma Grese....
I've seen it. It doesn't apply to Grese. It is also a play written to
address the Red Scare in the United States. The Salem case is much
more complex than that. But again, how do you know it happened ih the
first place?
Mike Curtis
Fafner13
All right, Mark, have it your way. Here are some other just convictions
within the same legal contexts:
1. Jews tried and executed for ritual murders of children.
2. The Rosenbergs
3. The accused and executed at the Salem Witch Trials.
Shall I continue, or will you admit what a cringing, offensive hypocrite
you are?
Mike Curtis
fafn...@aol.com (Fafner13) wrote:
>All right, Mark, have it your way. Here are some other just convictions
>within the same legal contexts:
>
>1. Jews tried and executed for ritual murders of children.
How so?
>2. The Rosenbergs
How so?
>3. The accused and executed at the Salem Witch Trials.
How do we know there were people accused or people executed or even if
there were Salem witch trials?
>Shall I continue, or will you admit what a cringing, offensive hypocrite
>you are?
Nah, let's find out what kind of hypocrite you are first.
posted and emailed
Mike Curtis
jbel...@sprynet.com
>
> :>fafn...@aol.com (Fafner13) wrote:
>
> :>>Here are a few other reivisionist historians:
> :>>
> :>>1. Charles App
>
> :>I'll have to look him up.
>
>
> :>One historian finally. What is his revisionism, exactly?
>
> Second World War_, posits that Hitler was not hell-bent on war from 1937
> on, that the war was as much the fault of the Allies as Hitler, and that
> the policy of appeasement that culminated in the Munich Agreement, was a
> good thing. He is in fact, a real revisionist, not a phony "revisionist"
> like Joe's heros.
>
>
Just who are my "heros"?
Mark Van Alstine
In article <19970730194...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
fafn...@aol.com (Fafner13) wrote:
> All right, Mark, have it your way. Here are some other just convictions
> within the same legal contexts:
>
> 1. Jews tried and executed for ritual murders of children.
Citation?
> 2. The Rosenbergs
Citation?
> 3. The accused and executed at the Salem Witch Trials.
Citation?
> Shall I continue...
Please do. But first, please show how these alleged "just convictions" of
yours were done under the "legal contexts" of the Belsen Trial.
> ...or will you admit what a cringing, offensive hypocrite
> you are?
Or will _you_ admit what a pathetic anti-Semitic lying scumbag Nazi
apologist your are?
jbel...@sprynet.com
Mark Van Alstine
In article <5rq3h1$hct$1...@juliana.sprynet.com>, jbel...@sprynet.com wrote:
> > mi...@aimetering.com (Mike Curtis) writes:
> >
>
> >
> > And these reports are?
> >
> > >Also, I have caught Ms Perl in another lie, in that she referred to Ms
> > >Grese as the highest female SS official in the camp. She was merely an
> > >Aufseherin......There were Oberaufseherinin, who were her superiors.
> >
> > Grese said she was in charge, Bellinger.
>
> REPLY: What has this to do with the lie Dr. Perl told? Grese was NOT
> the highest ranking SS woman in the camp, as Perl wrote.
According to Brown:
<begin quote>
In addition to supervising labor punishment details, Grese was assigned to
other routine duties within the Auschwitz facility. In the Nazi concept of
constantly having to prove oneself, supervisory personnel had to assume
various and divergent tasks. To this end, Grese worked as a telephone
operartor, served as the commander of a gardening squad (in the autumn of
1943), and following _SS-Aufseherin_ Elisabeth Volkenrath's reassignment
from the duty, as mail censor (in December 1943). Grese passed through
these different assignments, and having completed these tasks to the
satisfaction of her superiors, was promoted to the rank of
_Oberaufseherin_, or "Senior SS-matron." Consequently, at the age of
twenty, Irma Grese had been awarded the second highest rank that any
SS-women could aspire to, was givien virtual control of 30,000 women in
Birkenau's _C Lager_, and had the power to exterminate literally thousands
of human beings on a whim. Indeed, during her trial, formaer inmate
Abraham Glinowieski testified that had witnessed Grese send 'thousands and
thousands of people, ill and in quite good health, to the gas chambers."
<end quote>
Source: Brown, _The Beautiful Beast_, pp.41-42.
Cf. Phillips, _The Belsen Trial_, pp.105, 158.
So, given the above, perhaps Mr. Bellinger would be kind enough to tell
us which _Chef Oberaufseherin_ was _Oberaufseherin_ Grese's superior at
Auschwitz?
Then, again, considering that Mr. Bellinger was apparantly unware that
Grese was a _Oberaufseherin_ at Auschwitz, maybe not....
> > >And Ms Grese's comments about the "gas chambers" are confused and highly
> > >contradictory.
> >
> > How so?
>
> REPLY: I just explained it for you below.
No. Mr. Bellinger's "I am sure we can all come up with a possibility" is
not an explination -it is an evasion.
> > > Rumors by prisoners simply do not count as evidence. Miss
> > >Grese never witnessed an actual gassing nor did she ever even see the
> > >alleged gas chamber.
> >
> > Then why did she mark those as selected as not returning. Quote her
> > testimony. How does this testimony compare with Hoessler's and
> > Kramer's.
>
> REPLY: Why? I am sure we can all come up with a possibility without
> resorting to murder allegations.
Such as?
> > > And if there WAS one, speaking strictly
> > >hypothetically, Ms. Grese was certainly not guilty of aiding and abetting
> > >murder,
> >
> > Selecting those to be killed is not aiding murder? How so?
>
> REPLY: First you must demonstrate with convincing evidence that
> they were indeed murdered...
Convincing- and _convicting_ -evidence has _already_ been demonstrated by
quite a few courts, war crimes tribunals, and historians that prisoners at
Auschwitz (and elsewhere) were indeed murdered by the Nazis. In rhetorical
terms, the great body of convergent evidence of Nazi mass murder is the
_causa sine que non_ of the historical fact of the Holocaust.
> ...along with death ceritificates, etc. These people were registered
> inmates in the camp and there would have to be some documentation on this.
Following the prescedent established in the T4 progam, death certificates
of prisoners murdered at Auschwitz were routinely falsified. (cf. Lifton,
_The Nazi Doctors_, p.74-75,149,187,216.)
> > > as she was only responsible for rounding up the inmates for
> > >selections to be carried out by other individuals.
> >
> > She assisted in selections. She knew what was going on.
>
> REPLY: She knew they were being selected. As to what happened to
> them after they were selected, which was not within her competency,
> remains another issue.
Again, according to Brown:
<begin quote>
...Grese furher contended that once she had arranged the femal inmates in
roll-call formation, SS-Doctor Josef Mengele would then appear and
designate which prisoners would be transferred to Germany for work, which
ones would remain to work in Birkenau, and which ones would recieve "S.B"
(_Sonderbehanflung_, or "Special Treatment," was a Nazi euphanism for
immediate extermination). Despite initially claiming that she never did
any of the actual "selecting," Grese would admit in the second of her
three pre-trial statements that she knew about the gas chambers at
Auschwitz and that she did not protest the gassing of prisoners there.
<end quote>
Source: Brown, _The Beautiful Beast_, pp.41-42.
Cf. Phillips, _The Belsen Trial_, pp.251,712.
According to Grese:
<begin quote>
7.I remember saying in the first statement I made to an English officer
that "himmler is responsible for all that happened, but I suppuse I have
as much guilt as all the others above me." I meant by this that simply
being in the the S.S. and seeing the crimes committed on orders from those
in authority and doing nothing to protest or stop them being committed
makes anybody in the S.S. as quilty as anybody else. The crimes I refer to
are the gassing of persons at Auschwitz and the killing of thousands at
Belsen by starvation abd untended disease. I consider the crime to be
murder.
8.I know about the gas chamber at Auschwitz because prisoners who worked
in it told us about it. I only saw it myself from a distance, but I have
no doubt that manyt were gassed there.
<end quote>
Source: Phillips, _The Belsen Trial_, p.712.
> She never saw these rumored gas chambers...
Grese admits seeing them "from a distance."
> ...and until you demonsrtate with convincing evidence aside from rumors and
> eyewitness testimony, which is highly contradictory and full of holes, one
> must give her the benefit of the doubt.
Grese admitted that prisoners were gassed at Auschwitz.
> > > And who is to say with absolute certainty that these selected
> > > individuals were always euthanized?
> >
> > What do Kramer and Hoessler say aboout this?
>
> REPLY: There you go again with these so called "eyewitnesses". I am
> not impressed with their vcontradictory statements nor with the fact that
> both of these men were beaten and brutalized. I demand forensic evidence
> to support the claims.
Evidence of such has been, and is, constantly posted to this group for
years. That Mr. Belliger has somehow failed to comprehend this says much
in regard his woefully inadequte "powers" of perception. These citations
of evidence, for example, include:
The the ruins of the Kremas. Photographs of the Kremas during their
operation which shows mass incinerations taking place. Construction
documents calling L.Kller1 a gassing celler (_Vergassunskeller_) and
L.Keller 2 an undressing cellar (_Auskeidekeller_). Invoices for, and camp
memos confirming the use of, Zyklon B without lachrymal. The presence of
cyanides found on ventilation grill taken from the ruins of Krema II by
the by the CRF in 1945. The presence of cyanides found in samples taken
from the ruins of the gas chamber of Krema by the IFRC in 1994. Reichs
Railways records showing hundreds of thousands of deportees sent to, but
not from, Auschwitz etc. etc.
And, of course, their is the multitude of eyewitness testimonies by both
Nazis and survivors that corroborates the "forensic" evidence and thus
unquestionably confirms that homicidal gassings cum mass murder took place
at Auschwitz.
> > > Where is the forensic evidence? What were their identities? Where is
> > >the confirmation through death reports and so on?
> >
> > This has been answered before.
>
> REPLY: No, it hasn't and it has never been provided.
See above.
> > >As to the rest of the testimony, it smacks of simple revenge and spite,
> >
> > Victims shouldn't do that, should they?
>
> REPLY: It is natural, but hardly convincing evidence.
See above.
> > >and I have read it and reread it and given you every opportunity of
> > >convincing me that their testimony has credibility, but in all sincerity,
> > >I cannot find any reason for believing the witnesses you provided for our
> > >scrutiny.
> >
> > Because you say so.
>
> REPLY: I just wrote that "I" cannot find reason....
Obviously, then, Mr. Belliger's "powers" of perception leaves much to be
desired as the evidence has been staring him in the face for quite some
time now....
> > >It is still my contention that this girl did not deserve the imposition of
> > >the death penalty based upon what transpired during the course of her
> > >"trial." It all smacks of a hateful, hysterical, feminine witch hunt,
> >
> > What of Hoessler and Kramer?
>
> REPLY: We can discuss them another time.
Translation: "Please, after yet another shellackin', let me just crawl
back uner my rock..."
> > >similar to the Salem Witchcraft "Trials" and the crazed, denunciations of
> > >hysterical and vengeful female shrikes.
> >
> > How do you know that this happened?
> >
> > > Have you seen the recent movie,
> > >"The Crucible?" If not, I heartily recommend that you watch it, as it is
> > >very similar in substance to the "trial" of Irma Grese....
> >
> > I've seen it. It doesn't apply to Grese. It is also a play written to
> > address the Red Scare in the United States. The Salem case is much
> > more complex than that. But again, how do you know it happened ih the
> > first place?
>
> REPLY: I believe it DOES apply to Grese and many other accused.
Belief without substantiated evidence is simply, at best, dogma. In Mr.
Bellinger's case it is the fanatical dogma of an anti-Semitic lying
scumbag Nazi apologist.
http://www.dejanews.com/
http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/b/bellinger.joseph
http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/b/bellinger.joseph/lies
http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/b/bellinger.joseph/1996/blackmore.0996
http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/b/bellinger.joseph/1996/blackmore.1096
http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/b/bellinger.joseph/1996/blackmore.1196
http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/b/bellinger.joseph/1996/blackmore.1296
http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/b/bellinger.joseph/1997/blackmore.0197
http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/b/bellinger.joseph/1996/tutu101.1296
http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/b/bellinger.joseph/1997/fafner13.0197
http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/b/bellinger.joseph/1996/anyone-out-there-12-1
Mark
jbel...@sprynet.com
> mi...@aimetering.com (Mike Curtis) writes:
> mvan...@rbi.com (Mark Van Alstine) wrote:
>
> >In article <33dcbb6b....@news.jump.net>, mi...@aimetering.com (Mike
> >Curtis) wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> >Here are a few other reivisionist historians:
> >> >
> >> >1. Charles App
> >>
> >> I'll have to look him up.
> >
> to the "revisionist" beck and call.
>
>
>
>
>
>>>>
REPLY: Those are just the names of a few. i can name more, but
to what purpose, Mike?
Fafner13
Mark Pidley wrote:
>Citation?
REPLY: Take your pick. There are many you may choose from and you are
not unfamiliar with the topic.
>
>> 2. The Rosenbergs
>
>Citation?
REPLY: This is a well known case as well.
>
>> 3. The accused and executed at the Salem Witch Trials.
>
>Citation?
REPLY: Common knowledge.
>
>> Shall I continue...
>
>Please do. But first, please show how these alleged "just convictions" of
>yours were done under the "legal contexts" of the Belsen Trial.
REPLY: ROTFL.
>
>> ...or will you admit what a cringing, offensive hypocrite
>> you are?
>
>Or will _you_ admit what a pathetic anti-Semitic lying scumbag Nazi
>apologist your are?
>
>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--bit right through every human heart--and all human hearts."
>
>
>Citation?
>
>> 2. The Rosenbergs
>
>Citation?
>
>> 3. The accused and executed at the Salem Witch Trials.
>
>Citation?
>
>> Shall I continue...
>
>Please do. But first, please show how these alleged "just convictions" of
>yours were done under the "legal contexts" of the Belsen Trial.
>
>> ...or will you admit what a cringing, offensive hypocrite
>> you are?
>
>Or will _you_ admit what a pathetic anti-Semitic lying scumbag Nazi
>apologist your are?
jbel...@sprynet.com
> mi...@aimetering.com (Mike Curtis) writes:
>
>
> And these reports are?
>
> >Also, I have caught Ms Perl in another lie, in that she referred to Ms
> >Grese as the highest female SS official in the camp. She was merely an
> >Aufseherin......There were Oberaufseherinin, who were her superiors.
>
> Grese said she was in charge, Bellinger.
REPLY: What has this to do with the lie Dr. Perl told? Grese was NOT
the highest ranking SS woman in the camp, as Perl wrote.
>
> >And Ms Grese's comments about the "gas chambers" are confused and highly
> >contradictory.
>
> How so?
REPLY: I just explained it for you below.
>
> > Rumors by prisoners simply do not count as evidence. Miss
> >Grese never witnessed an actual gassing nor did she ever even see the
> >alleged gas chamber.
>
> Then why did she mark those as selected as not returning. Quote her
> testimony. How does this testimony compare with Hoessler's and
> Kramer's.
REPLY: Why? I am sure we can all come up with a possibility without
resorting to murder allegations.
>
> > And if there WAS one, speaking strictly
> >hypothetically, Ms. Grese was certainly not guilty of aiding and abetting
> >murder,
>
> Selecting those to be killed is not aiding murder? How so?
REPLY: First you must demonstrate with convincing evidence that
they were indeed murdered, along with death ceritificates, etc. These
people were registered inmates in the camp and there would have to be
some documentation on this.
>
> > as she was only responsible for rounding up the inmates for
> >selections to be carried out by other individuals.
>
> She assisted in selections. She knew what was going on.
REPLY: She knew they were being selected. As to what happened to
them after they were selected, which was not within her competency,
remains another issue. She never saw these rumored gas chambers,
and until you demonsrtate with convincing evidence aside from rumors and
eyewitness testimony, which is highly contradictory and full of holes, one
must give her the benefit of the doubt.
>
> > And who is to say with
> >absolute certainty that these selected individuals were always euthanized?
>
> What do Kramer and Hoessler say aboout this?
REPLY: There you go again with these so called "eyewitnesses". I am
not impressed with their vcontradictory statements nor with the fact that
both of these men were beaten and brutalized. I demand forensic evidence
to support the claims.
>
> > Where is the forensic evidence? What were their identities? Where is
> >the confirmation through death reports and so on?
>
> This has been answered before.
REPLY: No, it hasn't and it has never been provided.
>
> >As to the rest of the testimony, it smacks of simple revenge and spite,
>
> Victims shouldn't do that, should they?
REPLY: It is natural, but hardly convincing evidence.
>
> >and I have read it and reread it and given you every opportunity of
> >convincing me that their testimony has credibility, but in all sincerity,
> >I cannot find any reason for believing the witnesses you provided for our
> >scrutiny.
>
> Because you say so.
REPLY: I just wrote that "I" cannot find reason....
>
> >It is still my contention that this girl did not deserve the imposition of
> >the death penalty based upon what transpired during the course of her
> >"trial." It all smacks of a hateful, hysterical, feminine witch hunt,
>
> What of Hoessler and Kramer?
REPLY: We can discuss them another time.
>
Gord McFee
In <5rq2h9$g3r$5...@juliana.sprynet.com>, on 07/31/97
at 01:04 PM, jbel...@sprynet.com said:
:>> Gord McFee <gmc...@ibm.net> writes:
:>> In <33dee310....@news.jump.net>, on 07/29/97
:>> at 01:05 PM, mi...@aimetering.com (Mike Curtis) said:
:>>
:>> :>They still do not have many, if any, academic historians coming over to
:>> :>the "revisionist" beck and call.
:>>
:>> That's right. I think that much of the reason is that academic historians
:>> tend to be educated enough to be less susceptible to the denier rubbish.
:>> Second, they are trained in the acquisition, analysis and assessment of
:>> evidence, and most people who apply that standard of methodology to the
:>> Holocaust issue will conclude that it occurred. In fact, I would argue
:>> that "revisionism" is anti-intellectual by its nature, and intellectually
:>> dishonest in its manifestation.
:>REPLY: Thanks for sharing those thoughts with us, Gord.
It's always a pleasure. Hopefully they were internalized.
jbel...@sprynet.com
> mcu...@inetport.com (Mike Curtis) writes:
> fafn...@aol.com (Fafner13) wrote:
>
> >All right, Mark, have it your way. Here are some other just convictions
> >within the same legal contexts:
> >
> >1. Jews tried and executed for ritual murders of children.
>
REPLY: Don't be coy.
>
> >2. The Rosenbergs
>
> How so?
REPLY: Don't play coy.
>
> >3. The accused and executed at the Salem Witch Trials.
>
> How do we know there were people accused or people executed or even if
> there were Salem witch trials?
>
> >Shall I continue, or will you admit what a cringing, offensive hypocrite
> >you are?
>
> Nah, let's find out what kind of hypocrite you are first.
REPLY: Thats a non-sequitor.
Mike Curtis
jbel...@sprynet.com wrote:
>> >> >1. Charles App
>> >>
>> >> >2. AJP Taylor
>>
>> >> >3. Charles Tansil
>> >> >4. Austin App
>REPLY: Those are just the names of a few. i can name more, but
>to what purpose, Mike?
The discussion was about academic historians. You named an unknown, an
English professor, a historian of American Diplomacy. The only one who
comes close is Taylor and he didn't argue against there being a
Holocaust. He was a trivializer.
As far as I can see you haven't really named any.
Mike Curtis
Mike Curtis
fafn...@aol.com (Fafner13) wrote:
Speaking about Irma Grese:
>>> I do
>>>not feel that she deserved the death penalty.
>>
>>Good for you. so what? Make a case.
>
>REPLY: You are not that dense. I KNOW that, so why continue with the
>diversionary tactics.
Asking you to support your assertions is a diversionary tactic? Let's
see what you as far as diversion.
> It is simple as eating a piece of cake. YOU must
>make the case.
The case was already made by the English prosecutors. You are the
revisionist. You make the claim that the transcripts show her to be
innocent yet you have fasiled to provide this evidence.
> Her trial and the end result was as fair as the Salem
>Witch Trial.
No, this was the Belsen Trial. You haven't yet told me how you know
the Salem Witch Trials happened yet. There is no forensic evidence
that a trial ever took place. There are no pictures of the event and
there are no living witnesses to call liars. What is there that tells
you what went down in 1692 Salem?
> I refuse to be dragged into long arguments over this issue.
Of course you do. You have no arguments other than to call people
liars.
>I am not convinced by the evidence at the Belsen Trial, nor by what you
>have posted in support of your views here in this NG.
The problem is that you have no authority of credible merit to simply
dismiss on yur own, Bellinger. You are no expert and therefore should
substantiate the reasons for your assertions.
> I have a right to
>this opinion as you do to yours,
Of course you do. Who ever said you do not have the right to be wrong?
I have just as much right to call you on those opinions since you
present them as fact.
> and I encourage all individuals to read
>everything being written on this subject and then ,make up their own minds
>as to whether the accusations justified the imposition of a death sentence
>on this young lady, based upon what was offered in evidence at the time.
Yet you can't seem to do much more than to ignore the whole picture of
her case and call all witnesses liars. You even called Grese a liar
several times in the past.
>>
>>> She was prohibitively young
>>>and under orders from superiors,
>>
>>And she gave orders of her own. She testified that she did. She also
>>testified that she violated orders from superiors.
>
>REPLY: The orders I have read that she issued to not support the
>imposition of the death sentence.
She ordered people killed, tortured and beaten! She selected people
for the gas chambers.
Belsen Trial Page 105: Abraham Glinowski says:
"Grese was the camp leader in Camp C. I saw her every day, and when
the transports from Hungary arrived she sent thousands and thousands
of people, ill and in quite good health, to the gas chambers. She used
to come on inspections to the respective blocks and, according to her
whims, she beat people with a stick if she disliked them. She also
carried a pistol."
> She was only an Aufseherin, there were
>Oberaufseherinen above her.
Of course. You do have citation to help locate who this was?
> BTW, here is another exposed lie of Gisella
>Perl's, as she claimed that Grese was the "highest ranking female SS" in
>Auschwitz.
That was her impression and possibly the impression Grese wanted to
present. Perl was a prisoner, Bellinger.
>>
>>> as well as being thrown into an extremely
>>>hostile environment.
>>
>>Which environment was this? I recall she volunteered for her
>>positions.
>
>REPLY: Are you suggesting that these camps werre only populated by law
>abiding inmates, or there was no overt hostility against the Nazis?
What did Perl do to get thrown into Auschwitz?
What did Iona Stein do?
What did Abraham Glinowieski do?
What did Lidia Sunschein do?
What did Helen Klein do?
What did Dr. Charles Sigmund Bendel do other than not wear a Star of
David?
What did Roman Sompolinski do?
What did Anne Frank do?
What did Dorah Almaleh do?
What did Regina Bialek do?
The list can go on for most ALL the witnesses against the accused.
Tell me what they did to get arrested?
Tell me what the 400,000 Hungarian Jews did to get arrested.
>>
>>> Weighing in at only 100 pounds, she weighed much
>>>less than many of the inmates,
>>
>>Guns, whips, dogs and whatever else add to her weight. How much she
>>weighed is pretty pointless. The Dorchester(?) Ripper was pretty light
>>also, I understand, yet he did away with several innocent women.
>
>REPLY: She isn't the Dorchester Ripper. Get a grip on reality. Nor did
>she have a dog at Auschwitz.
Several people saw her with one. Maybe there was confusion but it
doesn't seem so since more than one individual saw her with one.
> That was Juana Bormann.
Bormann was hung also.
>>
>>> and I find it incredible that this little
>>>waif actually beat people to death with a makeshift cellophane whip.
>>
>>Cellophane cuts. But then you can prove this conjecture on what basis?
>
>RPLY: No, you prove to US that a few smacks from a cellophane whip will
>cause death, and then provide the incident reports to verify it.
Prove that it doesn't, Bellinger. You are the one contesting testimony
and Grese's own admissions. Not only do you have to prove survivors to
be a liar but yu have to prove Grese to be a liar. Your work is cut
out for you. (Pun intended.)
>>
>>>There is no evidence that this is true, and I do not believe the
>>>testimony,
>>
>>Despite the several witnesses saying the same thing and Grese
>>admitting much of what they claimed herself?!? C'mon, Bellinger, yu
>>are grasping at straws.
>
>REPLY: As if two or three liars cannot agree on a story before
>hand....Come on, Curtis.
You case to prove. Go for it. Sounds to me like you are special
pleading and without a lick of foundation.
>>
>>> and that is all there is to it.
>>
>>Because you say so?
>
>REPLY: Then provide us with hard evidence.
I have already provided evidence of your saying it is so because you
say so.
>>
>>> I am perplexed as to why you
>>>all insist on maintaining these obvious fabrications and lending them
>your
>>>full support.
>>
>>Provide evidence that they are fabrications.
>
>REPLY: I don't need to. You are accusing her, and agreeing with the
>accusations of fabricators.
Am I? Totally? Or do I look at what they say as a whole and consider
what Grese said. Your so busy handwaving your arm is bound to fly
right off into outer space.
>>
>>> What is your purpose? WHY do you do it? What is it you
>>>think you have to gain by doing so?
>>
>>I gain nothing personally other than the satisfaction that people may
>>learn to evaluate evidence historically. They can judge what I present
>>vs. the emptiness you present and they can then come to conclusions.
>>
>>It's that simple.
>
>REPLY: Well, then. show some moral back-bone on this issue. That is all
>I have ever asked for.
I believe trying to present the truth using the historical method is
honest and moral.
>>
>>
Mike Curtis
jbel...@sprynet.com
Fafner13
>Subject: Re: Irma Grese- Agerman Heroine A slut too.
>From: mvan...@rbi.com (Mark Van Alstine)
>Date: Fri, 01 Aug 1997 11:49:08 -0800
>Message-ID: <mvanalst-010...@rbi144.rbi.com>
>
>In article
REPLY: And the use of this light whip on violeny and unruly prisoners
justifies a death sentence? Hypocrite.
jbel...@sprynet.com
David Hoggan
If you are also dissatisfied with these, I will provide more names.
Fafner13
>The case was already made by the English prosecutors. You are the
>revisionist. You make the claim that the transcripts show her to be
>innocent yet you have fasiled to provide this evidence.
>
>
REPLY: Nonsense. You are a hypocrite, plain and simple. I am not
interested in convincing you of anything. It is impossible to make the
blind see.
>No, this was the Belsen Trial. You haven't yet told me how you know
>the Salem Witch Trials happened yet. There is no forensic evidence
>that a trial ever took place. There are no pictures of the event and
>there are no living witnesses to call liars. What is there that tells
>you what went down in 1692 Salem
REPLY: Another diversion. That dog don't hunt/
>Of course you do. You have no arguments other than to call people
>liars.
>
>
REPLY: You might want to give the same censure to your comarades.
>. You are no expert and therefore should
>substantiate the reasons for your assertions.
REPLY: But I am an expert. It is up to you to provide convincing
evidence.
>Of course you do. Who ever said you do not have the right to be wrong?
>I have just as much right to call you on those opinions since you
>present them as fact.
REPLY: I have never presented an educated opinion as a fact. It is up to
you to provide the facts as to why this girl should have been hanged, and
you have failed, and do not refer to that Kangaroo court for your support,
otherwise I will expose you (AGAIN) as a hypocrite who refuses to apply
the same standards of evaluation when examining cases of Jews convicted of
crimes by the same method.
>Yet you can't seem to do much more than to ignore the whole picture of
>her case and call all witnesses liars. You even called Grese a liar
>several times in the past.
REPLY: If the witnesses did not immediately strike me as being outrageous
liars, I would not say so publicly. I have stated that Grese seemed much
more credible than the witnesses who appeared against her. The only
problem I have with grese is that she agreed on things which were beyond
her knowledge.
>She ordered people killed, tortured and beaten! She selected people
>for the gas chambers.
>
>
REPLY: All right. So what if she ordered someone guilty of infractions
in the camp to receive a beating. As if this does not occur in prisons
throughout the world. I personally do not agree with it in most cases,
but it depends upon the infraction, and this is not a reason to put her to
death.
Also, where will you prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she ordered
people to be tortured? I have read NO convincing evidence to that effect.
germans were also torutred during and after the war and on many occasions
murdered, but hyopocrites like yourself did nothing to bring their
murderers to justice or at least have a day in court. You write that she
selected people---for the "gas chambers--which she never saw and claimed
existed on the basis of inmate rumours! This is idiotic. She
participated in selections, and the people were then turned over to the
custody of other officials in the camp. That is all their is to it. You
nor anyone else has ever proven that these individuals were murdered.
>>REPLY: Are you suggesting that these camps werre only populated by law
>>abiding inmates, or there was no overt hostility against the Nazis?
>
>What did Perl do to get thrown into Auschwitz?
>What did Iona Stein do?
>What did Abraham Glinowieski do?
>What did Lidia Sunschein do?
>What did Helen Klein do?
>What did Dr. Charles Sigmund Bendel do other than not wear a Star of
>David?
REPLY: Michael, what did the Japanese do to be interred in America? The
Jews at the time were considered by the NS Govt to be potentially hostile
and were taken into protective custody. At any rate, Grese was not
responsible for the policies of her country anymore than the American
guards of the Nisei.
And still you avoided my question: You KNOW that many of the inmates in
these camps, both Jewish and non-Jewish, were dangerous individuals,
criminals, and so on. Simply admit that fact.
>Tell me what the 400,000 Hungarian Jews did to get arrested.
REPLY: They were within a threatened war zone, and were deported for what
the NS Govt. determined were security reasons, as the Soviets approached.
>>Guns, whips, dogs and whatever else add to her weight. How much she
>>>weighed is pretty pointless. The Dorchester(?) Ripper was pretty light
>>>also, I understand, yet he did away with several innocent women.
>>
>>REPLY: She isn't the Dorchester Ripper. Get a grip on reality. Nor
did
>>she have a dog at Auschwitz.
>
>Several people saw her with one. Maybe there was confusion but it
>doesn't seem so since more than one individual saw her with one.
>
>> That was Juana Bormann.
>
>Bormann was hung also.
REPLY: Well, at least thanks for inadverdently conceding my point that
Grese was not accompanied by dogs.
>Prove that it doesn't, Bellinger. You are the one contesting testimony
>and Grese's own admissions. Not only do you have to prove survivors to
>be a liar but yu have to prove Grese to be a liar. Your work is cut
>out for you. (Pun intended.)
>
>
REPLY: Tit for tat and twisting and turning and back to the old Nizkook
tricks we are all familiar with here in the NG. YOU must provide the
eividence. Innocent until proven guiilty...and the revengeful kangaroo
courts presided over by erstwhile enemies does not count.
>Am I? Totally? Or do I look at what they say as a whole and consider
>what Grese said. Your so busy handwaving your arm is bound to fly
>right off into outer space.
>
>>>
I have read what Grese said and she denied their accusations for the most
part.
>I believe trying to present the truth using the historical method is
>honest and moral.
>
REPLY: Then try to live by the lofty principles you recommend to others.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Gord McFee
In <5rtclo$bmi$5...@juliana.sprynet.com>, on 08/01/97
at 07:16 PM, jbel...@sprynet.com said:
:>> mi...@aimetering.com (Mike Curtis) writes:
:>> jbel...@sprynet.com wrote:
:>>
:>> >> >> >1. Charles App
:>> >> >>
:>> >> >> >2. AJP Taylor
:>> >>
:>> >> >> >3. Charles Tansil
:>> >> >> >4. Austin App
:>>
:>> >REPLY: Those are just the names of a few. i can name more, but
:>> >to what purpose, Mike?
:>>
:>> The discussion was about academic historians. You named an unknown, an
:>> English professor, a historian of American Diplomacy. The only one who
:>> comes close is Taylor and he didn't argue against there being a
:>> Holocaust. He was a trivializer.
:>>
:>> As far as I can see you haven't really named any.
:>>
:>>
:>> Mike Curtis
:>>
:>>
:>>
:>>>>>
:>REPLY: Ernst Nolte
Nolte is a functionalist if I remember correctly. They accept the
Holocaust.
Fafner13
> Consequently, at the age of
>twenty, Irma Grese had been awarded the second highest rank that any
>SS-women could aspire to, was givien virtual control of 30,000 women in
>Birkenau's _C Lager_, and had the power to exterminate literally
thousands
>of human beings on a whim
REPLY: Who is this fool Brown you keep quoting? leave it to Mark to
uncover this bloated old atrocity filled sources? Is this book currently
in print? Back to the old "Kill on a whim" theme....
. Indeed, during her trial, formaer inmate
>Abraham Glinowieski testified that had witnessed Grese send 'thousands
and
>thousands of people, ill and in quite good health, to the gas chambers."
REPLY: Why should we believe him? He was a liar.
>
><end quote>
>
>Source: Brown, _The Beautiful Beast_, pp.41-42.
REPLY: Date of publication? Still available?
>
>Cf. Phillips, _The Belsen Trial_, pp.105, 158.
>
>So, given the above, perhaps Mr. Bellinger would be kind enough to tell
>us which _Chef Oberaufseherin_ was _Oberaufseherin_ Grese's superior at
>Auschwitz?
>
>Then, again, considering that Mr. Bellinger was apparantly unware that
>Grese was a _Oberaufseherin_ at Auschwitz, maybe not....
REPLY: What I read is that there were other SS Matrons above her. I need
to read this book you offer. Considering your other old hoary sources, I
do not hold much of a good prospect for this one.
>
>> > >And Ms Grese's comments about the "gas chambers" are confused and
>highly
>> > >contradictory.
>> >
>> > How so?
>>
>> REPLY: I just explained it for you below.
>
>No. Mr. Bellinger's "I am sure we can all come up with a possibility" is
>not an explination -it is an evasion.
>
>> > > Rumors by prisoners simply do not count as evidence. Miss
>> > >Grese never witnessed an actual gassing nor did she ever even see
the
>> > >alleged gas chamber.
>> >
>> > Then why did she mark those as selected as not returning. Quote her
>> > testimony. How does this testimony compare with Hoessler's and
>> > Kramer's.
>>
>> REPLY: Why? I am sure we can all come up with a possibility without
>> resorting to murder allegations.
>
>Such as?
REPLY: They could have been sent to another camp, or they could have been
sent to another area within the camp. Auschwizt covered forty miles of
territory.
>
>> > > And if there WAS one, speaking strictly
>> > >hypothetically, Ms. Grese was certainly not guilty of aiding and
>abetting
>> > >murder,
>> >
>> > Selecting those to be killed is not aiding murder? How so?
REPLY: She nor anyone else ever saw these people actually killed.
>>
>> REPLY: First you must demonstrate with convincing evidence that
>> they were indeed murdered...
>
>Convincing- and _convicting_ -evidence has _already_ been demonstrated by
>quite a few courts, war crimes tribunals, and historians that prisoners
at
>Auschwitz (and elsewhere) were indeed murdered by the Nazis.
REPLY: That depends. Right now I am concerned with Grese.
In rhetorical
>terms, the great body of convergent evidence of Nazi mass murder is the
>_causa sine que non_ of the historical fact of the Holocaust.
REPLY: yes, back to the old convergence of unsupported testimonies again.
>
>> ...along with death ceritificates, etc. These people were registered
>> inmates in the camp and there would have to be some documentation on
this.
>
>Following the prescedent established in the T4 progam, death certificates
>of prisoners murdered at Auschwitz were routinely falsified. (cf. Lifton,
>_The Nazi Doctors_, p.74-75,149,187,216.)
REPLY: All right, then. where are they? Present them. Give us names of
individuals who can be traced to her section of the camp, and then prove
that the ledgers, should you uncover any, were falsified. Perhaps some
may have been, but who can say for certain?
>
>> > > as she was only responsible for rounding up the inmates for
>> > >selections to be carried out by other individuals.
>> >
>> > She assisted in selections. She knew what was going on.
>>
>> REPLY: She knew they were being selected. As to what happened to
>> them after they were selected, which was not within her competency,
>> remains another issue.
>
>Again, according to Brown:
REPLY: Well, who is Brown and why should we believe him?
>
><begin quote>
>
>...Grese furher contended that once she had arranged the femal inmates in
>roll-call formation, SS-Doctor Josef Mengele would then appear and
>designate which prisoners would be transferred to Germany for work, which
>ones would remain to work in Birkenau, and which ones would recieve "S.B"
>(_Sonderbehanflung_, or "Special Treatment," was a Nazi euphanism for
>immediate extermination)
REPLY: The old "conspiracy theory" again....those "secret code words"
which only the exterminationist is qualified to interpret....
. Despite initially claiming that she never did
>any of the actual "selecting," Grese would admit in the second of her
>three pre-trial statements that she knew about the gas chambers at
>Auschwitz and that she did not protest the gassing of prisoners there.
REPLY: She "knew" through rumours. This is not very convincing. And,
even if she did know, what good would a protest have done? This is
idiotic. Would such selections have been discontinued simply because this
21 year old 100 lb woman protested?
>
><end quote>
>
>Source: Brown, _The Beautiful Beast_, pp.41-42.
>
>Cf. Phillips, _The Belsen Trial_, pp.251,712.
>
>According to Grese:
>
><begin quote>
>
>7.I remember saying in the first statement I made to an English officer
>that "himmler is responsible for all that happened, but I suppuse I have
>as much guilt as all the others above me." I meant by this that simply
>being in the the S.S. and seeing the crimes committed on orders from
those
>in authority and doing nothing to protest or stop them being committed
>makes anybody in the S.S. as quilty as anybody else. The crimes I refer
to
>are the gassing of persons at Auschwitz and the killing of thousands at
>Belsen by starvation abd untended disease. I consider the crime to be
>murder.
REPLY: Oh, her statement while in custody. Well, we all know how
genteely the British treated their German prisoners at Belsen.
These statements are NOT convincing.
>
>8.I know about the gas chamber at Auschwitz because prisoners who worked
>in it told us about it. I only saw it myself from a distance, but I have
>no doubt that manyt were gassed there.
REPLY: In other words, she never saw it. This is like saying, "I was
told by my neighbors that a UFO appeared in my back-yard and abducted my
neighbors I saw something in the distance, so I know it was a UFO and my
neighbors were abducted.
>
><end quote>
>
>Source: Phillips, _The Belsen Trial_, p.712.
>
>> She never saw these rumored gas chambers...
>
>Grese admits seeing them "from a distance."
REPLY: hardly convincing.
>
>> ...and until you demonsrtate with convincing evidence aside from rumors
and
>> eyewitness testimony, which is highly contradictory and full of holes,
one
>> must give her the benefit of the doubt.
>
>Grese admitted that prisoners were gassed at Auschwitz.
REPLY: Yes, we just went through that bit.
>
>> > > And who is to say with absolute certainty that these selected
>> > > individuals were always euthanized?
>> >
>> > What do Kramer and Hoessler say aboout this?
>>
>> REPLY: There you go again with these so called "eyewitnesses". I am
>> not impressed with their vcontradictory statements nor with the fact
that
>> both of these men were beaten and brutalized. I demand forensic
evidence
>> to support the claims.
>
>Evidence of such has been, and is, constantly posted to this group for
>years. That Mr. Belliger has somehow failed to comprehend this says much
>in regard his woefully inadequte "powers" of perception. These citations
>of evidence, for example, include:
>
>The the ruins of the Kremas. Photographs of the Kremas during their
>operation which shows mass incinerations taking place.
REPLY: never denied.
Construction
>documents calling L.Kller1 a gassing celler (_Vergassunskeller_)
REPLY: Vergasung can refer toinsects and delousing, as I posted a couple
of months ago. How soon you forget!
and
>L.Keller 2 an undressing cellar (_Auskeidekeller_).
REPLY: never denied. One has to undress to be deloused.
Invoices for, and camp
>memos confirming the use of, Zyklon B without lachrymal
REPLY: The lachrymal was NEVER in the Zyklon distributed to the camp even
BEFORE "extermination" was ever allegedly discussed.
. The presence of
>cyanides found on ventilation grill taken from the ruins of Krema II by
>the by the CRF in 1945
REPLY: not commesurate with killing huge numbers of people.
. The presence of cyanides found in samples taken
>from the ruins of the gas chamber of Krema by the IFRC in 1994. Reichs
>Railways records showing hundreds of thousands of deportees sent to, but
>not from, Auschwitz etc. etc.
REPLY: many thousands were marched out, and thousands did die.
>
>And, of course, their is the multitude of eyewitness testimonies by both
>Nazis and survivors that corroborates the "forensic" evidence and thus
>unquestionably confirms that homicidal gassings cum mass murder took
place
>at Auschwitz.
REPLY: Well, we have seen the quality of those statements many times in
this NG.
Mark Van Alstine
In article <EE8tv...@world.std.com>, dke...@world.std.com (Daniel Keren)
wrote:
> fafn...@aol.com (Fafner13) writes:
>
> [About Irma Grese]
>
> # I find it incredible that this little waif actually beat people
> # to death with a makeshift cellophane whip.
>
> Boger, she said that she used a stick to beat the inmates. In
> her words:
>
> "I usually used to beat them on the shoulders, but
> there were times when, because of the numbers involved,
> they were beaten on any part of the body that happened
> to be easiest".
According to Brown:
<begin quote>
Not only was Irma Grese always dresed in immaculately and impressively
tailored SS uniforms, whe also wore a silver-plated pistol that she
frequently used. However, what set this guard apart from the others was
her additional instruments of torture. One truly unique "accessory" was a
semi-tenspaent, gleaming cellophane whip that she had fashioned out of
material taken from the camp's weaving factory. While Grese protested at
her trial that the whip was not used to hurt anyone, she admitted that its
light weight was useful for her line of work. Grese also denied ever
carrying a rubber truncheon in the camps, but eventually she did confess
that despite an order by then-Birkenau Commandant, _SS-Hauptsturmfu"hrer_
Josef Kramer, to eliminate whips from use, she and other female
supervisors continued to employ them. In her final arrest deposition,
Grese admitted that she always had a whip and that she used it, along with
an unauthorized whipping stick, consistantly {Grese's word] whenever
necessary.
<end quote>
Source: Brown, _The Beautiful Beast_, pp.49-50.
According to Grese, "It was a very light whip, but if I hit somebody with
it, it would hurt." (cf. Phillips, _The Belsen Trial_, p.249.)
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--bit right through every human heart--and all human hearts."
-- Alexander Solzhenitsyn, "The Gulag Archipelago"
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Keren
fafn...@aol.com (Fafner13) writes:
[About Irma Grese]
# I find it incredible that this little waif actually beat people
# to death with a makeshift cellophane whip.
Boger, she said that she used a stick to beat the inmates. In
her words:
"I usually used to beat them on the shoulders, but
there were times when, because of the numbers involved,
they were beaten on any part of the body that happened
to be easiest".
-Danny Keren.
Mark Van Alstine
In article <19970801082...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
fafn...@aol.com (Fafner13) wrote:
> > Consequently, at the age of
> >twenty, Irma Grese had been awarded the second highest rank that any
> >SS-women could aspire to, was givien virtual control of 30,000 women in
> >Birkenau's _C Lager_, and had the power to exterminate literally
> thousands
> >of human beings on a whim
>
> REPLY: Who is this fool Brown you keep quoting?
The back cover says: "Daniel Patrick Brown teaches history at Moorpark
College, Moorpark, California."
> ...leave it to Mark to uncover this bloated old atrocity filled sources?
Indeed. For certain, Mr., Bellinger couldn't (or _wouldn't_) "uncover" it!
> Is this book currently in print?
Yes. Mr. Bellinger may order it from Amazom.com <http://www.amazon.com>:
The Beautiful Beast : The Life & Crimes of Ss-Aufseherin Irma Grese
by Daniel Patrick Brown
*NR Edition
Paperback
Published by Golden West Historical Pubns
Publication date: June 1996
ISBN: 0930860144
> ...Back to the old "Kill on a whim" theme....
And Mr. Bellinger, in lieu of any substantive rebuttal, falls back on
empty rhetoric. This was, of course, to be expected....
> > Indeed, during her trial, formaer inmate
> >Abraham Glinowieski testified that had witnessed Grese send 'thousands
> >and thousands of people, ill and in quite good health, to the gas chambers."
>
> REPLY: Why should we believe him? He was a liar.
Prove it. Empty ad hominems do not an argument make.
> ><end quote>
> >
> >Source: Brown, _The Beautiful Beast_, pp.41-42.
>
> REPLY: Date of publication?
June 1996.
> Still available?
Yes. (See above.)
> >Cf. Phillips, _The Belsen Trial_, pp.105, 158.
> >
> >So, given the above, perhaps Mr. Bellinger would be kind enough to tell
> >us which _Chef Oberaufseherin_ was _Oberaufseherin_ Grese's superior at
> >Auschwitz?
> >
> >Then, again, considering that Mr. Bellinger was apparantly unware that
> >Grese was a _Oberaufseherin_ at Auschwitz, maybe not....
>
> REPLY: What I read is that there were other SS Matrons above her.
Citations?
> I need to read this book you offer.
Then perhaps Mr. Bellinger should quit whining and do so? It's readily
available. (See above.)
> ...Considering your other old hoary sources, I
> do not hold much of a good prospect for this one.
BFD. Mr. Bellinger have repeatedly evidenced, with his anti-Semitic lying
scumbag Nazi apologia, that he does not "hold much of a good prospect" for
_any_ source that contradicts his anti-Semitic lying scumbag Nazi
apologist world-view.
> >> > >And Ms Grese's comments about the "gas chambers" are confused and
> >highly
> >> > >contradictory.
> >> >
> >> > How so?
> >>
> >> REPLY: I just explained it for you below.
> >
> >No. Mr. Bellinger's "I am sure we can all come up with a possibility" is
> >not an explination -it is an evasion.
> >
> >> > > Rumors by prisoners simply do not count as evidence. Miss
> >> > >Grese never witnessed an actual gassing nor did she ever even see
> >> > >the alleged gas chamber.
> >> >
> >> > Then why did she mark those as selected as not returning. Quote her
> >> > testimony. How does this testimony compare with Hoessler's and
> >> > Kramer's.
> >>
> >> REPLY: Why? I am sure we can all come up with a possibility without
> >> resorting to murder allegations.
> >
> >Such as?
>
> REPLY: They could have been sent to another camp...
Evidence? Citations?
> ...or they could have been sent to another area within the camp.
Evidence? Citations?
> ...Auschwizt covered forty miles of territory.
The Auschwitz "area of interest" -i.e. the outer security zone, covered
about 40 square kilometers. Thre three camps, where the prisoners were
kept, comprised but small fraction of this area: KL Auschwitz II
(Birkenau) covered about 1 sq mi; KL Auschwitz I about 0.06 sq mi; and KL
Auschwitz III (Monowitz) about 0.06 sq mi. (cf. Gutman, _Anatomy_, p.503;
USHMM, _Historical Atlas of the Holocaust_, p.94.)
> >> > > And if there WAS one, speaking strictly
> >> > >hypothetically, Ms. Grese was certainly not guilty of aiding and
> >> > >abetting murder,
> >> >
> >> > Selecting those to be killed is not aiding murder? How so?
>
> REPLY: She nor anyone else ever saw these people actually killed.
There were numerous eyewitnesses- both Nazis and survivors -who testified
that prisoners where gassed to death at Auschwitz. Such testimonies have
been posted countless times here. Grese, for example, testified that it
was common knowledge hat prisoners selected for Sonder Behandlung were
gassed:
<begin quote>
...After the selection took place they were sent to "B" Camp, and Dreschel
telephoned that they had gone to another camp in Germany for working
purposes or for special treatment, which I thought to be the gas chamber.
I then put in my strength book either so many for tansfer to Germany to
another camp, or so many dor S.B. (Sonder Behandlung). It was well known
to the whole camp that S.B meant the gas chamber.
<end quote>
Source: Phillips, _The Belsen Trial_, p.251.
> >> REPLY: First you must demonstrate with convincing evidence that
> >> they were indeed murdered...
> >
> >Convincing- and _convicting_ -evidence has _already_ been demonstrated by
> >quite a few courts, war crimes tribunals, and historians that prisoners
> >at Auschwitz (and elsewhere) were indeed murdered by the Nazis.
>
> REPLY: That depends.
That is fact.
> ...Right now I am concerned with Grese.
Uh huh. And in your "concern" you demanded "convincing evidence" that
prisoners were murdered at Auschwitz. Such evidence has already been
provided. Now you backpeddal. How typical.
> >In rhetorical terms, the great body of convergent evidence of Nazi mass
> >murder is the _causa sine que non_ of the historical fact of the Holocaust.
>
> REPLY: yes, back to the old convergence of unsupported testimonies again.
No. The convergence of evidence _supports_ the testimonies. This has been
amply demonstrated numerous times. Do try and keep up.
> >> ...along with death ceritificates, etc. These people were registered
> >> inmates in the camp and there would have to be some documentation on
> >> this.
> >
> >Following the prescedent established in the T4 progam, death certificates
> >of prisoners murdered at Auschwitz were routinely falsified. (cf. Lifton,
> >_The Nazi Doctors_, p.74-75,149,187,216.)
>
> REPLY: All right, then. where are they? Present them. Give us names of
> individuals who can be traced to her section of the camp, and then prove
> that the ledgers, should you uncover any, were falsified. Perhaps some
> may have been, but who can say for certain?
In regard to the precedent of falsifying deaths certificates in the T4
"euthanasia" program, according to Kogon:
<begin quote>
Each ["euthanasia"] facility had a so-called special registry office,
attached the registry office of the municipality to which the facility
belonged but independant of it. The registration of "euthanasia" deaths
was its exlusive responsibility. In this way the death rate, which was
exessively high for a single locality, could be concealed.
For the certification of death, the physicians had at their disposal a
list of causes that could explain a sudden natural death. The
administration offices of the "euthanasia" facilities sent letters of
condolance to the families, which used standard formulas prepared in
advance. The letters indicated the alleged cause of death and added that,
to avoid risk of contamination, it had been necessary to cremate the body;
the urn with the ashes of the deceased would be sent on request.
The wording of the letters of condolance was not always the same. The
"euthanasia" facility at Brandenberg chose the following formulation:
Dear Sir,
As you have certainly already been informed, your daughter,
Miss ________, was trnasferred to our establishment by ministerial
order. It is our painful duty to inform you that your daughter died
here on _______ of influenza, with an abcess on the lung. Unfortunately,
all the efforts made by the medical staff to keep the patrient alive
proved in vain.
We wish to express our sincere condolances at your loss. Yoiu will
find consolation in the thought that the death of your daughter
relieved her from her terrible and incurable suffering.
According to instructions from the police, we were obliged to proceeed
immediately with cremation of the body. This measure is intended to
protect the country from the spread of infectious diseases, which in
time of war poses a considerable danger. The regulation must, therefore,
be strictly adhered to.
Should you widh the urn to be sent to you- at no charge -kindly inform
us and send us the written consent of the cemetary authorities. If we
do not recieve a reply from you within a fortnight, we shall make
arrangements for the burial of the urn. Please find encloded two copies
of the death certificate to be presented to the authorities. We suggest
that you keep them in a safe place.
Heil Hitler!
These letters of condolance and the death certificates issued by the
special registry office were signed by the physicians at the "euthanasia"
facilities, using pseudonyms. The death was registered on the basis of the
file that the establishment kept for each patient. The ficticious cause of
death and sometimes a false date were noted in the file. The files were
collected and stored at the T4 headquarters in Berlin. Toward the end of
the war, however, they were transported to Hartheim, where they were
destroyed in a shredder.
The so-called Absteckabteilung (Equalization Department) was part of the
special registry office. Its function was to falsify the date and place of
death of those who had been killed, in order to avoid the simultaneous
announcements of a large number of deaths in the same place. To this end
the patients' files were exchanged among the different "euthanasia"
facilities, so that trhe death would be registered in a facility different
from the one which it had actially occurred. To have a better overview of
the situation, these Equalization Departments were equiped with maps of
the cities and regions from which the victims came. A colored pin
indicated the hometown of each murdered patient. If too many from the same
area had been killed at the same time, the aces and dates of death given
to the families were altered in such a way that no connection between
these deaths would be noticed. The trnasport lists were then marked
"disifectred on _______."
[...]
Al the Jewish inmates of mental hospitals were subject to the "euthanasia"
operation, irrespective of their ability to work or the seriousness of
their illness. They were first seperated from the other inmates and
brought together in special asylums. The minister of the interior stated
in a circular dated 15 April 1940:
Concerns: Registration of sanatoria and nursding homes of every type.
Ref: Report of 14 October 1939-St. V 15-
I hereby request that all establishments in question inform me as to
the number of their Jewish patients (men and wommen to be indicated
seperately) suffering from feeble-mindedness or mental illness.
I should recieve the replu within the next three weeks.
By order
Linden
The duly registered Jewish patients from the Berlin area were assembled at
the hospital at Buch, near the capital. From there most of them were
transferred to thegas chamber at the Brandenberg-Havel "euthanasia"
facility. The transport personnel who came to collect the patients (men,
women, and children) in large buses belonging to the state-owned railroad
company generally wore white coats, to give the impression that they were
physicians or medical assistants. In general, about two hundred patients
were transferred at a time. A similar procedure was followed in other
provinces.
Beginning in September 1940, Jewish patients were regularly transferred
from these assembly points to the extermination center. Some went to
Brandenberg, but from 1941 they were sent to the part of German-occupied
Poland that was under what was then known as the General Government- in
other words, the part that was not included in te Wartheland. There they
were shot or killed in gas vans. A letter from Gekrat to the head of the
Wernecj hospital dated 21 February 1941 stated "Concerning the Jewish
patients whom we have had transferred to the General Government, we have
decided to charge the expenses incurred for each patient to the budget of
the asylums where they were before.
A special registry office (Referat XY) was set up in the administrative
department of T4. Under the name "Chelm Mental Asylum" or "Cholm II,"
whose address was given as P.O. Box 882, Lublin, it registered the deaths
of more than five thousand Jews considered mentally ill. This sham
registry office was first installed at the Clumbushaus in Berlin, then in
a building on Kanonierstrasse. The "Chelm" or "Cholm II" special registry
office also had to register the deaths of the Jews who had been sent to
the gas chamber at Brandenberg. For example, it registered the death of
the Jewish patients who were tranferred on 13 September 1940 from the
asylum at Neustadt (Holstein) to the one at Hamberg-Langenhorn, and from
there to Brandenberg on 23 September, where they were sent to the gas
chamber the same day. Fictitious dates ranging from 4 December 1940 to 31
MArch 1941 were given for the deaths.
"Operation Cholm" was particularly profitable for the budget of the
department of T4, which collected not only the valuables left by the
victim, such as gold teeth and jewelry, but also the hospital fees, which
it continued to receive for several months after the deaths initially
occurred.
<end quote>
Source: Kogon, _Nazi Mass Murder_, pp.29-30,31-32.
A more specific example is related by Burleigh:
<begin quote>
Horst L., an hydrocephalic eleven-year-old, was admitted to Go"rdon on 1
October 1942....The daily reports of the nursing staff describe a cheerful
child who liked to tell stories and sang a lot. He was X-rayed and
photographed in a series of positions....
[...]
On 12 Janaury, 1943, Dr Schumacher, the consultant neurologist, dictate a
letter about Horst to be snt to the Reich Committee. Horst's evident
curiosity, happiness and imaginitiveness were filtered out. He was now
simply an eleven-and-a-half-year-old with the intelligence of a
five-and-a-half-year-old. He would never improve, and would never perform
'socially valuable activities'. He recommended 'treatment in line with the
Ministry of the Interior' [i.e. "euthanasia"]. Horst died on 5 March 1943
at ten o'clock. A suspicially lengthy entry in his medical record on the
same day attempts to fabricate a history of gradual decline. He had lost
weight, stopped playing and talking to adults, and sat, staring vacantly
into space. All of these things apparently happened in a day. The cause of
death was given as 'bronchial pneumonia', but the autospy revealed nothing
wrong with his lungs. The skull, the report continued, 'is pronoucedly
larger than the rest of the organism'. That had not been Horst's problem.
<end quote>
Source: Burleigh, _Death and Deliverance_, pp.109-111.
Cf. HHStAW Abt. 631a Nr 424, patient record with all materials (including
photographs and X-ray plates), on Horst L.
In regard to the falsification of death certificates (and "medicalized"
killing) at Auschwitz, according to Lifton:
<begin quote>
With the arrival of Eduard Wirths as chief SS physician in September 1942,
and the increasing offical emphasis on the working capacity of prisoners,
medical facilities were considerably expanded and improved. Prisoner
doctors were permitted to do real medical work; responsible political
prisoners (many of them German Communists) replaced often brutal criminal
prisoners in important medically related positions; and SS doctors, for
the most part, lent their support to these developments. Yet at precidely
the same time, mass murder of Jews was also expanded to reach its most
extreme proportions, and SS doctors were major coordinating figures. They
'did everything the command wished": that is, "cooperated closely...in the
annihilation of the prisoners, and simultaneously did everything to make
believe that they administered the proper medical treatment and in such a
wayu they helped conceal various crimes." Their falsifications included
certification of the food rations as sufficient for life as well as the
subsequent death certificates (required for prisoners admitted to the
camp).
<end quote>
Source: Lifton, _The Nazi Doctors_, p.187.
Cf. Langbein, _menchen_ [7], pp.420-21.
A specific example of the falsification of the cause of death of a
prisoner is related by Auschwitz survivor Dr. Albert Wenger, an American
citizen, a lawyer and economics expert who was arrested in Vienna, on
Febraury 24, 1943, and sent to Auschwitz on March 6, 1943. Dr. Wagner,
suffering from the provations and brutalities that were common to
Auschwitz, subsequently fell ill on March 23, 1943 and was sent to Block
28 (the prisoners infirmary). After recovering he worked in Block 28 as a
male nurse and barrack "Schreiber" (scribe). There he witnessed the
selection of prisoners, by SS Doctors, who were then sent to the gas
chambers. He specifically recalls that the "protected deportee[s]"
(Schutzheftling) Josepg Iratz and Herbert Kohn were sent to the gas
chambers. (This was, according to Dr. Wagner, probably an error as
Schutzheftling, according to the camp rules were not supposed to be
selected for gassing.)
In Dr. Wagner's offical declaration "made to the representatives of the
liberating armies," according to Lengyal, tells the following:
<begin quote>
"In the Autumn, 1943, the German 'protected inmate,' Willi Kritsch, 28
years old, an architect, was beaten with a stick by Unterscharfu"hrer
Nidowitzky in one of his fits of sadism until Kritsch fell to the ground.
Since Kritsch was still alive, Nidowitzky ordered that he be taken to the
operating room where he (nidowitzky) injected him with phenol. The cause
of death was stated as 'heart failure!'
<end quote>
Source: Lengyal, _Five Chimneys_, p.183.
Unfortunately, much of the medical records from the prisoner infirmaries
at Auschwitz, according to Lengyel, were confiscated by the SS and burned
when the camp was being abandoned by the Nazis (cf. Lengyal, _Five
Chimneys_, p.209). However, the Auschwitz _morgue register_ confirms that
prisoners were routinely murdered with phenol injections in the prisoner
infirmaries. According to Czech:
<end quote>
October 16 [1941]
[...]
In the prisoner's infirmary 21 prisoners are killed with phenol
injections. In the Morgue Register, the entry "27w" appears nect to these
prisoners' numbers.
<end quote>
Source: Czech, _Auschwitz Chronicle_, p.96.
The refernece for this entry is cited: "APMO, D-RO/90K, 1/B.**." The
footnote to this reference reads:
<begin quote>
**This is a list of prisoners who died or were killed by shooting and
injections. The list was made in Auschwitz and, with the help of the
resistance movement, was sent illicitly to Krakow. It is a copy of the
Morgue Register. The number of 21 prisoners who were brought in one after
another are put together in brackets and the note "injection" is added.
Next to those numbers is the code "27w." Thus we can assume that previous
entries marked with the same code concern prisoners who were also killed
with phenol injections.
<edn quote>
Source: Czech, _Auschwitz Chronicle_, p.96fn.
In regard to the Morgue Register, according to Czech:
<begin quote>
The Morgue Register covers the period October 7, 1941 to August 31, 1943.
The entries are made by the individual body bearers. The following data
are noted daily: the current number, the prisoner number, and the place of
admission, i.e., usually the number of the residential or infirmary block,
Block 11, or the abbreviation for the Penal Comapny (SK-Strafkompanie),
the gravel pit (KG-Kiesgrube), the Political Department (PA-Politische
Abteilung) or the Russian Camp (RL-Russisches Lager). The last refers to
prisoners who were put in the camp of the Russian POWs and died there.
Many entries are mde in a code. The entry "27w" probably means that the
prisoner was killed by phenol injection in the lavatory of Block 28 or in
the waiting room of the morgue of Block 28 where the corpse bearers
gathered and were also given phenol injections. The entry "27w" is under
the current number entry during the period October 7, 1941 to January 10,
1942; later "28w" is entered.
<end quote>
Source: Czech, _Auschwitz Chronicle_, p.94fn.
> >> > > as she was only responsible for rounding up the inmates for
> >> > >selections to be carried out by other individuals.
> >> >
> >> > She assisted in selections. She knew what was going on.
>
>
> >>
> >> REPLY: She knew they were being selected. As to what happened to
> >> them after they were selected, which was not within her competency,
> >> remains another issue.
> >
> >Again, according to Brown:
>
> REPLY: Well, who is Brown and why should we believe him?
Brown is a college history teacher and his book came from a paper written
while studying the Holocaust at Yad Vashem in 1985. The question, rather,
given that there is no reason _not_ to believe Brown (certainly none
offered by Mr. Bellinger beside empty rhetoric), is why _shouldn't_ we
belive Brown? He does, for example cite convincing source material, as
evidenced by his footnotes and extensive bibliography.
> ><begin quote>
> >
> >...Grese furher contended that once she had arranged the femal inmates in
> >roll-call formation, SS-Doctor Josef Mengele would then appear and
> >designate which prisoners would be transferred to Germany for work, which
> >ones would remain to work in Birkenau, and which ones would recieve "S.B"
> >(_Sonderbehanflung_, or "Special Treatment," was a Nazi euphanism for
> >immediate extermination)
>
> REPLY: The old "conspiracy theory" again....those "secret code words"
> which only the exterminationist is qualified to interpret....
More empty rhetoric. Anybody who honestly undertakes to study the source
material can be "qualified" to understand what _Sonderbehanflung_ meant in
the context of Nazi mass murder.
> >Despite initially claiming that she never did
> >any of the actual "selecting," Grese would admit in the second of her
> >three pre-trial statements that she knew about the gas chambers at
> >Auschwitz and that she did not protest the gassing of prisoners there.
>
> REPLY: She "knew" through rumours....
She talked to the Sonderkommando who worked in the Kremas and saw the
victims of homicidal gassing with their own eyes. The testimonies and of
surviving Sonerkommandos such as Dragon, Mu"ller, Bendel, and Tauber, for
example, leave no doubt that mass murder via homicidal gassing took place
in the Kremas.
> ...This is not very convincing.
To Mr. Bellinger. That hardly comes as a suprise. Mr. Bellinger is _a
priori_ "not very convinced" by anything remotely implicating Nazis in
mass murder, specifically homicidal gassing. To say I am swayed not in the
least by whether Mr. Bellinger is "convinced" or not is an understatement.
> ...And, even if she did know, what good would a protest have done?
Grese, like members of Police Battalion 101 who objected to the killing,
could have opted out of (willing) complicity in mass murder. Himmler,
after all, had "issued a general order giving dispensation for members of
police and security forces to opt out of killing." (cf. Goldhagen,
_Hitler's Willing Executioners_, p.278; ref: P.K., ZstL 208 AR-Z5/63.)
According to Klee et al, citing "an SS-Hauptscharfu"hrer":
<begin quote>
...Many abandoned themselves to alcohol, many suffered nervous breakdoens
and psychological illnesses; for example we had suicides and there were
cases where some men cracked up and shot wildly around them and completely
lost control. When this happened Himmler issued an order stating that any
man who no longer felt able to take the psychological stresses should
report to his superior officer. These men were to be released from their
current duties and would be detailed for other work back home....
<end quote>
Source: Klee et al, _The Good Old Days_, pp.81-82.
> This is idiotic.
That Grese could have opted out? No. Others opted out. It's a fact.
> ...Would such selections have been discontinued simply because this
> 21 year old 100 lb woman protested?
That's not the issue. The issue is, aside from Grese being a sadistic
bitch, _Grese's_ complicity in mass murder.
> ><end quote>
> >
> >Source: Brown, _The Beautiful Beast_, pp.41-42.
> >
> >Cf. Phillips, _The Belsen Trial_, pp.251,712.
> >
> >According to Grese:
> >
> ><begin quote>
> >
> >7.I remember saying in the first statement I made to an English officer
> >that "himmler is responsible for all that happened, but I suppuse I have
> >as much guilt as all the others above me." I meant by this that simply
> >being in the the S.S. and seeing the crimes committed on orders from
> those
> >in authority and doing nothing to protest or stop them being committed
> >makes anybody in the S.S. as quilty as anybody else. The crimes I refer
> to
> >are the gassing of persons at Auschwitz and the killing of thousands at
> >Belsen by starvation abd untended disease. I consider the crime to be
> >murder.
>
> REPLY: Oh, her statement while in custody. Well, we all know how
> genteely the British treated their German prisoners at Belsen.
> These statements are NOT convincing.
> >
> >8.I know about the gas chamber at Auschwitz because prisoners who worked
> >in it told us about it. I only saw it myself from a distance, but I have
> >no doubt that manyt were gassed there.
>
> REPLY: In other words, she never saw it.
In other words, she got the direct poop from the Sonderkommando who worked
in the Kremas and saw the victims of homicidal gassing with their own
eyes. The testimonies and of surviving Sonerkommandos such as Dragon,
Mu"ller, Bendel, and Tauber, for example, leave no doubt that mass murder
via homicidal gassing took place in the Kremas.
> This is like saying, "I was told by my neighbors that a UFO appeared in my
> back-yard and abducted my neighbors I saw something in the distance, so I
> know it was a UFO and my neighbors were abducted.
No. It is like saying that she was told by _eyewitnesses_ that homicidal
gassings were carried out in the Kremas. The testimonies and of surviving
Sonerkommandos such as Dragon, Mu"ller, Bendel, and Tauber, for example,
leave no doubt that mass murder via homicidal gassing took place in the
Kremas.
> ><end quote>
> >
> >Source: Phillips, _The Belsen Trial_, p.712.
> >
> >> She never saw these rumored gas chambers...
> >
> >Grese admits seeing them "from a distance."
>
> REPLY: hardly convincing.
To Mr. Bellinger. That hardly comes as a suprise. Mr. Bellinger is _a
priori_ "not very convinced" by anything remotely implicating Nazi in mass
murder, specifically homicidal gassing. To say I am swayed not in the
least by whether Mr. Bellinger is "convinced" or not is an understatement.
> >> ...and until you demonsrtate with convincing evidence aside from rumors
> >> and eyewitness testimony, which is highly contradictory and full of holes,
> >> one must give her the benefit of the doubt.
> >
> >Grese admitted that prisoners were gassed at Auschwitz.
>
> REPLY: Yes, we just went through that bit.
Yes, and Mr. Bellinger's empty rhetoric withstanding, Grese admitted that
prisoners were gassed at Auschwitz. Grese admitted that she wrote "S.B."
in her "strength book" for prisoners selected for Sonder Behandlung -and
that these prisoners were then gassed.
> >> > > And who is to say with absolute certainty that these selected
> >> > > individuals were always euthanized?
> >> >
> >> > What do Kramer and Hoessler say aboout this?
> >>
> >> REPLY: There you go again with these so called "eyewitnesses". I am
> >> not impressed with their vcontradictory statements nor with the fact
> >> that both of these men were beaten and brutalized. I demand forensic
> >> evidence to support the claims.
> >
> >Evidence of such has been, and is, constantly posted to this group for
> >years. That Mr. Belliger has somehow failed to comprehend this says much
> >in regard his woefully inadequte "powers" of perception. These citations
> >of evidence, for example, include:
> >
> >The the ruins of the Kremas. Photographs of the Kremas during their
> >operation which shows mass incinerations taking place.
>
> REPLY: never denied.
Excellent. Mr. Bellinger accepts that mass incinerations took place at
Auschwitz. It's a start. Now _why_ would the Nazi be incinerating
_thousands_ of people day in and day out during Aktion Ho"ss? What
implications can be drawn from this, given that in regard to these mass
incinerations we _also_ have eyewitness, documentary, and "forensic"
evidence that indicates that _thousands_ of people were murdered at the
very same time such mass incinerations were taking place?
I would put forward, given this (and the multitude of evidence corming
mass homicidal gassings inthe Kremas) that these corpses which were mass
incinerated were the victims who were gassed to death.
> >Construction documents calling L.Kller1 a gassing celler (_Vergassunskeller_)
>
> REPLY: Vergasung can refer toinsects and delousing, as I posted a couple
> of months ago. How soon you forget!
No. That would be "Entlausung." As in Entlausungsbarracke and
Entwesungskammer etc. I posted an article about this a couple of months
ago. How soon _Mr. Bellinger_ "forgets"!
> and
> >L.Keller 2 an undressing cellar (_Auskeidekeller_).
>
> REPLY: never denied. One has to undress to be deloused.
Prisoners delousing took place in the Stammlager reception building (KL Au
I), Bauwerken 5a and 5b (KL Au II), and the Zentral Sauna (KL Au II). Part
of the prisoner delousing process included taking a shower. There were no
(working) showers for prisoners in L.Keller 1 or 2 of Kremas for prisoner
II and III; nor in Kremas IV and V; and certainly not in bunkers 1 and
2.
> Invoices for, and camp
> >memos confirming the use of, Zyklon B without lachrymal
>
> REPLY: The lachrymal was NEVER in the Zyklon distributed to the camp even
> BEFORE "extermination" was ever allegedly discussed.
Citations? The the inclusion of the lachrymal in Zyklon B used for
delousing was mandated by German law for safety reasons; the SS
(illegally) ordered and recieved Zyklon B from DEGESCH without the
lachrymal for _homicidal_ use. (cf. Gutman, _Encylcopedia of the
Holocaust_, p.1750.)
Moreover, in a memo to the Auschwitz SS in regard to a "case of slight
indisposition with slight symptoms of poisoning by hydrocyanic gas" during
the August 1942 camp-wide delousing program, Ho"ss wrote: "The gas being
used at present contains less odorous warning agent and is therefore
especially dangerous." This, of course, implies that the Zyklon B used
_prior_ to this contained a _more_ "odorous warning agent" -i.e. that it
contained the lachrymal.(cf. Pressac, _Technique_, p.201.)
The interesting thing, of course, is that according to Pressac, because
the camp _ran out_ of (normal) Zyklon B fighting the typhus epidemic, some
of the desperately needed Zyklon B used for delousing the camp was
obtained by the Auschwitz SS under the _false pretense_ that it was to be
for "special treatment," "special actions," and "resettlement of the Jews"
-all euphamisms for homicidal gassing. Ergo, the Zyklon B sans lachrymal.
(cf. Gutman, _Anatomy_, p.215; Pressac, _Technique_, p.188.)
> >The presence of cyanides found on ventilation grill taken from the ruins of
> >Krema II by the by the CRF in 1945
>
> REPLY: not commesurate with killing huge numbers of people.
More empty rhetoric. Six galvanized ventilation grills were taken from the
rubble of L.Keller 1. 7.2 gramms of scrapings were collected an analyzed
and cyanides were detected. Coupled with eywitness testimony that
(hundreds of thousands of) people were gassed to death in L.Keller 1, such
would indeed be "commesurate with killing huge numbers of people." (cf.
Pressac, _Technique_, p.233.)
[Mr. Bellinger's empty rhetoric snipped]
jbel...@sprynet.com
Mark Van Alstine
In article <19970801204...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
fafn...@aol.com (Fafner13) wrote:
[snip]
> >. You are no expert and therefore should
> >substantiate the reasons for your assertions.
>
> REPLY: But I am an expert. It is up to you to provide convincing
> evidence.
Apparantly Mr. Bellinger is suffering from delusions of grandeur. Would
Mr. Bellinger care to tell us of his "expert" qualifications in regard to
the history of the Holocuast? (I can't wait for this one folks, hold on to
your hats!)
Note: Being an anti-Semitic lying scumbag Nazi apologist does _not_ make
one an expert on the history of the Holocaust.
> >Of course you do. Who ever said you do not have the right to be wrong?
> >I have just as much right to call you on those opinions since you
> >present them as fact.
>
> REPLY: I have never presented an educated opinion as a fact.
True. But then, Mr. Bellinger has never presented an educated opinion....
[snip]
For those interested in proof of Mr. Bellinger's increasingly irrelevant
Nazi apologia, Holocaust denial, intellectual dishonesty, anti-Semitism,
and outright lies, please peruse DejaNews and visit the Nizkor Project at:
http://www.dejanews.com/
http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/b/bellinger.joseph
http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/b/bellinger.joseph/lies
http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/b/bellinger.joseph/1996/blackmore.0996
http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/b/bellinger.joseph/1996/blackmore.1096
http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/b/bellinger.joseph/1996/blackmore.1196
http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/b/bellinger.joseph/1996/blackmore.1296
http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/b/bellinger.joseph/1997/blackmore.0197
http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/b/bellinger.joseph/1996/tutu101.1296
http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/b/bellinger.joseph/1997/fafner13.0197
http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/b/bellinger.joseph/1996/anyone-out-there-12-1
Mark
Mike Curtis
jbel...@sprynet.com wrote:
>> mcu...@inetport.com (Mike Curtis) writes:
>> fafn...@aol.com (Fafner13) wrote:
>>
>> >All right, Mark, have it your way. Here are some other just convictions
>> >within the same legal contexts:
>> >
>> >1. Jews tried and executed for ritual murders of children.
>>
>> How so?
>
>REPLY: Don't be coy.
Bellinger fails AGAIN to answer a question asked of him.
>>
>> >2. The Rosenbergs
>>
>> How so?
>
>REPLY: Don't play coy.
Bellinger fails AGAIN to answer a question asked of him.
>>
>> >3. The accused and executed at the Salem Witch Trials.
>>
>> How do we know there were people accused or people executed or even if
>> there were Salem witch trials?
Bellinger fails AGAIN to answer a question asked of him.
>>
>> >Shall I continue, or will you admit what a cringing, offensive hypocrite
>> >you are?
>>
>> Nah, let's find out what kind of hypocrite you are first.
>
>REPLY: Thats a non-sequitor.
>
Bellinger fails AGAIN to answer a question asked of him.
Mike Curtis
Mike Curtis
jbel...@sprynet.com wrote:
Your the one throwing names around. Why don't you tell us what his
version is.
Mike Curtis
Gord McFee
In <19970801204...@ladder02.news.aol.com>, on 08/01/97
at 08:45 PM, fafn...@aol.com (Fafner13) said:
:>>The case was already made by the English prosecutors. You are the
:>>revisionist. You make the claim that the transcripts show her to be
:>>innocent yet you have fasiled to provide this evidence.
:>REPLY: Nonsense. You are a hypocrite, plain and simple. I am not
:>interested in convincing you of anything. It is impossible to make the
:>blind see.
Joe, you still can't separate your belief system from historiography, can
you? The prosecutors, the court and the academic historians who have
studied the event *all* agree. The only one who disagrees, that is, who
seeks to "revise", that is, who "appeals", is *you*. Hence, the burden of
proof is on *you*, and you have so far provided not a stick of proof.
:>>No, this was the Belsen Trial. You haven't yet told me how you know
:>>the Salem Witch Trials happened yet. There is no forensic evidence
:>>that a trial ever took place. There are no pictures of the event and
:>>there are no living witnesses to call liars. What is there that tells
:>>you what went down in 1692 Salem
:>REPLY: Another diversion. That dog don't hunt/
He was replying to *your* diversion. The Salem Witch Trials are
irrelevant to the issue at hand.
:>>Of course you do. You have no arguments other than to call people
:>>liars.
:>REPLY: You might want to give the same censure to your comarades.
:>>. You are no expert and therefore should
:>>substantiate the reasons for your assertions.
:>REPLY: But I am an expert. It is up to you to provide convincing
:>evidence.
You are certainly not an expert in evidentiary proceedings or historical
examination. It is not up to Mr. Curtis to provide convincing evidence.
He is in agreement with conventional wisdom and evidence on the matter.
*You* are contesting that evidence; therefore, it is up to you to provide
convincing evidence. Stop trying to evade your responsibility.
:>>Of course you do. Who ever said you do not have the right to be wrong?
:>>I have just as much right to call you on those opinions since you
:>>present them as fact.
:>REPLY: I have never presented an educated opinion as a fact. It is up
:>to you to provide the facts as to why this girl should have been hanged,
:>and you have failed, and do not refer to that Kangaroo court for your
:>support, otherwise I will expose you (AGAIN) as a hypocrite who refuses
:>to apply the same standards of evaluation when examining cases of Jews
:>convicted of crimes by the same method.
I see. So Grese's self-incriminating evidence is not enough. Eyewitness
testimony is not enough. Findings of a court are not good enough.
Nothing is good enough. The girl "should have been hanged" because a
court found her guilty and executed a legal sentence on her. If you
choose to claim that was wrong, it is up to *you* to provide the proof.
That's another one of your little tricks, isn't it? Try to put the onus
of proof on everyone except the person who really has it: the
"reviser"--YOU.
And you said a lot about yourself when you defended the Freisler court.
Of course, that was Germans, so it was ok by definition, right?
:>>Yet you can't seem to do much more than to ignore the whole picture of
:>>her case and call all witnesses liars. You even called Grese a liar
:>>several times in the past.
:>REPLY: If the witnesses did not immediately strike me as being
:>outrageous liars, I would not say so publicly. I have stated that Grese
:>seemed much more credible than the witnesses who appeared against her.
:>The only problem I have with grese is that she agreed on things which
:>were beyond her knowledge.
So, when she denied things, you agree with her. When she admitted things,
you disagree with her. A model of consistency you ain't, Joe.
:>>She ordered people killed, tortured and beaten! She selected people
:>>for the gas chambers.
:>REPLY: All right. So what if she ordered someone guilty of infractions
:>in the camp to receive a beating. As if this does not occur in prisons
:>throughout the world. I personally do not agree with it in most cases,
:>but it depends upon the infraction, and this is not a reason to put her
:>to death.
She admitted she did all that.
:>Also, where will you prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she ordered
:>people to be tortured? I have read NO convincing evidence to that
:>effect.
Not even her own? And what about the selections for the gas chambers,
which I note you have dodged--again?
:> germans were also torutred during and after the war and on many
:>occasions murdered, but hyopocrites like yourself did nothing to bring
:>their murderers to justice or at least have a day in court. You write
:>that she selected people---for the "gas chambers--which she never saw
:>and claimed existed on the basis of inmate rumours! This is idiotic.
:>She participated in selections, and the people were then turned over to
:>the custody of other officials in the camp. That is all their is to it.
:>You nor anyone else has ever proven that these individuals were
:>murdered.
Well, which is it? She didn't assist in the selections for existing gas
chambers, or she did assist in the selections for non-existing gas
chambers?
And quit trying to deflect the discussion to alleged tortures of Germans.
That is irrelevant and you have never proved--by your own standards--a
single case of it.
:>>>REPLY: Are you suggesting that these camps werre only populated by law
:>>>abiding inmates, or there was no overt hostility against the Nazis?
:>>
:>>What did Perl do to get thrown into Auschwitz?
:>>What did Iona Stein do?
:>>What did Abraham Glinowieski do?
:>>What did Lidia Sunschein do?
:>>What did Helen Klein do?
:>>What did Dr. Charles Sigmund Bendel do other than not wear a Star of
:>>David?
:>REPLY: Michael, what did the Japanese do to be interred in America?
:>The Jews at the time were considered by the NS Govt to be potentially
:>hostile and were taken into protective custody. At any rate, Grese was
:>not responsible for the policies of her country anymore than the
:>American guards of the Nisei.
Dodged the question and tried to deflect things again, didn't you Joe?
:>And still you avoided my question: You KNOW that many of the inmates in
:>these camps, both Jewish and non-Jewish, were dangerous individuals,
:>criminals, and so on. Simply admit that fact.
Proof please?
:>>Tell me what the 400,000 Hungarian Jews did to get arrested.
:>REPLY: They were within a threatened war zone, and were deported for
:>what the NS Govt. determined were security reasons, as the Soviets
:>approached.
Horsefuckingshit. They were deported to Auschwitz and gassed because they
were Jews. Period. Even Eichmann admitted that for God's sake.
[deleted]
:>>Prove that it doesn't, Bellinger. You are the one contesting testimony
:>>and Grese's own admissions. Not only do you have to prove survivors to
:>>be a liar but yu have to prove Grese to be a liar. Your work is cut
:>>out for you. (Pun intended.)
:>REPLY: Tit for tat and twisting and turning and back to the old Nizkook
:>tricks we are all familiar with here in the NG. YOU must provide the
:>eividence. Innocent until proven guiilty...and the revengeful kangaroo
:>courts presided over by erstwhile enemies does not count.
Wrong, Joe. She has already been found guilty by a competent court. You
contest that. So, *you* have to provide the proof. You are "on appeal"
here. Quit trying to slough your job off on Mike Curtis. And, by the
way, on appeal, it is bad form to simply dismiss the verdict of the first
court with a wave of the hand. Unfortunately for you, the standard of
proof--the burden of proof--is higher and rests entirely with you.
I suppose you will now throw in a Salem Witch Trial diversion?
Face up to it, Joe. You are out of your league on this one and you have
been thoroughly thrashed.
:>>Am I? Totally? Or do I look at what they say as a whole and consider
:>>what Grese said. Your so busy handwaving your arm is bound to fly
:>>right off into outer space.
:>I have read what Grese said and she denied their accusations for the
:>most part.
You had better re-read Grese.
:>>I believe trying to present the truth using the historical method is
:>>honest and moral.
:>REPLY: Then try to live by the lofty principles you recommend to others.
He is. You aren't.
Posted and e-mailed to Joe and Mike Curtis.
Nele Abels-Ludwig
On 2 Aug 1997 jbel...@sprynet.com wrote:
[...]
> > Nolte is a functionalist if I remember correctly. They accept the
> > Holocaust.
> REPLY: Well, which version of it.
The true one. The "Historikerstreit" which has made Nolte's name known was
about the question whether the Nazis started the Holocaust because Stalin
had set an example. That's Nolte's revisionism, which in my opinion is real
revisionism. A different question is of course, whether Nolte is right or
not. In the outcome, the "Historikerstreit" has reached the conclusion that
he is wrong.
Nele
John Morris
In
<Pine.A41.3.96.970803...@pprz02.HRZ.Uni-Marburg.DE>,
on 3 Aug 1997 12:39:57 GMT, Nele Abels-Ludwig
<Ab...@pprz02.HRZ.Uni-Marburg.DE> wrote:
Since I started this thread, I guess I ought to contribute something
to it.
This is the first post to address the real issue in listing the names
of historians. In science, the opinion of one researcher doesn't count
for much until a consensus of opinion is reached among most of the
researchers in a field. The final stage of proof is not in simply
making a case, but in making a case which satisfies the interested
community of scholars. For instance, while most everyone who has been
paying attention probably now believes that there was microbial life
on Mars at some point, the jury is still out on that one. The apparent
consensus is simply because the wet blankets don't get the press
coverage.
In history, the same process is at work even if it is complicated by
by a much larger data set and by the vagaries of interpreting human
agency and motivation. Nevertheless, a reliable consensus is reached
on large order facts such as whether the Battle of Hastings occurred
(even if there are no forensic studies of whether eleventh-century
swords and pikes were effective weapons).
It is revealing that the numbers of historians named as Revisionists
is so small and includes so many names of historians who would be
sickened at the thought of being associated with Revisionism (not to
mention the number of names of non-historians). So far the list seems
to be James Martin and David Hoggan and should have included Harry
Barnes. That doesn't strike me as a sample representing the consensus
of opinion in the community of historians. In fact, it strikes me as a
list of names of historians who have ended up being marginalized
because their arguments didn't make the final cut.
Conspiracy nuts will, of course, view their marginalization as further
proof of the power of the Holocaust hoax conspiracy. But they would do
well to bear in mind that Daniel Goldhagen will probably suffer a
similar fate once the first flush of popularity blows over.
--
John Morris <John....@UAlberta.CA>
at University of Alberta <Scripture veteris capiunt exempla futuri>
--
The Nizkor Project is at http://www.nizkor.org/
Mark Van Alstine
In article <01bca143$3a1cd4a0$0f55eccd@odin>, "Anthony Sabatini"
<anth...@infobahnos.com> wrote:
> John Morris <check.the...@nospam.ualberta.edu> wrote in article
> <33e4e3d4...@news.srv.ualberta.ca>...
>
> [snip]
>
> > This is the first post to address the real issue in listing the names
> > of historians. In science, the opinion of one researcher doesn't count
> > for much until a consensus of opinion is reached among most of the
> > researchers in a field. The final stage of proof is not in simply
> > making a case, but in making a case which satisfies the interested
> > community of scholars. For instance, while most everyone who has been
> > paying attention probably now believes that there was microbial life
> > on Mars at some point, the jury is still out on that one. The apparent
> > consensus is simply because the wet blankets don't get the press
> > coverage.
>
> True. Could this perhaps be at least one reason why revisionists don't get
> equal air time in the media, so to speak?
More likely is simply because they are anti-Semitic crackpots.
> > In history, the same process is at work even if it is complicated by
> > by a much larger data set and by the vagaries of interpreting human
> > agency and motivation. Nevertheless, a reliable consensus is reached
> > on large order facts such as whether the Battle of Hastings occurred
> > (even if there are no forensic studies of whether eleventh-century
> > swords and pikes were effective weapons).
> >
> > It is revealing that the numbers of historians named as Revisionists
> > is so small and includes so many names of historians who would be
> > sickened at the thought of being associated with Revisionism (not to
> > mention the number of names of non-historians).
>
> Could the immediate (and certain!) blackballing, bad publicity and smear
> campaign retribution have anything to do with this? You know, kinda like what
> happened to David Irving.
More likely is simply because they are anti-Semitic crackpots.
> > So far the list seems
> > to be James Martin and David Hoggan and should have included Harry
> > Barnes. That doesn't strike me as a sample representing the consensus
> > of opinion in the community of historians. In fact, it strikes me as a
> > list of names of historians who have ended up being marginalized
> > because their arguments didn't make the final cut.
>
> Are you saying that 'official' history is decided by, in essence,
> popular vote?
No, more like "the consensus of opinion in the community of historians."
> Isn't that what Napoleon claimed when he said, 'History is an agreed upon
> fable' (or something similar)?
No.
> > Conspiracy nuts will, of course, view their marginalization as further
> > proof of the power of the Holocaust hoax conspiracy. But they would do
> > well to bear in mind that Daniel Goldhagen will probably suffer a
> > similar fate once the first flush of popularity blows over.
>
> I doubt that it will matter to him.
Probably not.
> He's already made $$$$$, and that's what non-historical Holocaustamania
> is all about, right?
I dunno, why don't you ask Greg Raven how much the IHR scams from idiots
like you?
For those interested in proof of Mr. "Sabatini's" Holocaust denial,
intellectual dishonesty, anti-Semitism, and outright lies, please peruse
DejaNews and visit the Nizkor Project at:
http://www.dejanews.com/
http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi?people/s/sabatini.anthony
Anthony Sabatini
Mark Van Alstine <mvan...@rbi.com> wrote in article
<mvanalst-050...@rbi145.rbi.com>...
> In article <01bca143$3a1cd4a0$0f55eccd@odin>, "Anthony Sabatini"
> <anth...@infobahnos.com> wrote:
>
> > John Morris <check.the...@nospam.ualberta.edu> wrote in article
> > <33e4e3d4...@news.srv.ualberta.ca>...
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > > This is the first post to address the real issue in listing the names
> > > of historians. In science, the opinion of one researcher doesn't count
> > > for much until a consensus of opinion is reached among most of the
> > > researchers in a field. The final stage of proof is not in simply
> > > making a case, but in making a case which satisfies the interested
> > > community of scholars. For instance, while most everyone who has been
> > > paying attention probably now believes that there was microbial life
> > > on Mars at some point, the jury is still out on that one. The apparent
> > > consensus is simply because the wet blankets don't get the press
> > > coverage.
> >
> > True. Could this perhaps be at least one reason why revisionists don't get
> > equal air time in the media, so to speak?
>
> More likely is simply because they are anti-Semitic crackpots.
Yes, of course. That _must_ be it. Dolt.
> > > In history, the same process is at work even if it is complicated by
> > > by a much larger data set and by the vagaries of interpreting human
> > > agency and motivation. Nevertheless, a reliable consensus is reached
> > > on large order facts such as whether the Battle of Hastings occurred
> > > (even if there are no forensic studies of whether eleventh-century
> > > swords and pikes were effective weapons).
> > >
> > > It is revealing that the numbers of historians named as Revisionists
> > > is so small and includes so many names of historians who would be
> > > sickened at the thought of being associated with Revisionism (not to
> > > mention the number of names of non-historians).
> >
> > Could the immediate (and certain!) blackballing, bad publicity and smear
> > campaign retribution have anything to do with this? You know, kinda like
what
> > happened to David Irving.
>
> More likely is simply because they are anti-Semitic crackpots.
Tell me, does nothing happen in your little world outside of Nazi conspiracies?
> > > So far the list seems
> > > to be James Martin and David Hoggan and should have included Harry
> > > Barnes. That doesn't strike me as a sample representing the consensus
> > > of opinion in the community of historians. In fact, it strikes me as a
> > > list of names of historians who have ended up being marginalized
> > > because their arguments didn't make the final cut.
> >
> > Are you saying that 'official' history is decided by, in essence,
> > popular vote?
>
> No, more like "the consensus of opinion in the community of historians."
So how is this different that popular vote amongst the "community of
historians"?
> > Isn't that what Napoleon claimed when he said, 'History is an agreed upon
> > fable' (or something similar)?
>
> No.
Care to elaborate?
> > > Conspiracy nuts will, of course, view their marginalization as further
> > > proof of the power of the Holocaust hoax conspiracy. But they would do
> > > well to bear in mind that Daniel Goldhagen will probably suffer a
> > > similar fate once the first flush of popularity blows over.
> >
> > I doubt that it will matter to him.
>
> Probably not.
Hey, we agree! The little propagandist/opportunist has made his money and now
he doesn't give a shit.
> > He's already made $$$$$, and that's what non-historical Holocaustamania
> > is all about, right?
>
> I dunno, why don't you ask Greg Raven how much the IHR scams from idiots
> like you?
How much do you think I sent in, tough guy?
[silly .sig and VanSlander (tm) deleted]
Mark Van Alstine (allegedly one Stuart Pidley) is, as far as I can tell, a
virulent spewer of mistruths, a slanderous serpent and has a most peculiar
interest for building demolition procedures, something which most honest
citizens do not share. His ranting, mewling and temper tantrums, along with
his foul verbiage and assorted excrement, can be found regularly in
alt.revisionism, one of his favorite haunts.
For more information on this misbegotten jackal-spawn, please see:
http://search.dejanews.com/profile.xp?author=van%20alstine%20mark
http://ftp.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi?people/v/van-alstine.mark
Mike Curtis
jbel...@sprynet.com wrote:
>> mvan...@rbi.com (Mark Van Alstine) writes:
>> In article <19970720195...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
>> fafn...@aol.com (Fafner13) wrote:
>>
>REPLY: What were these "cruelties" Mark. Put your facts where
>your mouth is. Describe for us what evidence justified an imposition
>of the death sentence, aside from the lies of your hysterical "eye-witnesses"
>which are about as credible as the lies told during the Salem Witch Trials.
What lies were these, Bellinger?
>In fact, I heartily recommend that the reader rent the video "The Crucible"
>and see how the Nuremberg verdicts were similarly reached.
How were they reached at Salem? Citations will be provided I'm sure.
Mike Curtis
Anthony Sabatini
John Morris <check.the...@nospam.ualberta.edu> wrote in article
<33e4e3d4...@news.srv.ualberta.ca>...
[snip]
> This is the first post to address the real issue in listing the names
> of historians. In science, the opinion of one researcher doesn't count
> for much until a consensus of opinion is reached among most of the
> researchers in a field. The final stage of proof is not in simply
> making a case, but in making a case which satisfies the interested
> community of scholars. For instance, while most everyone who has been
> paying attention probably now believes that there was microbial life
> on Mars at some point, the jury is still out on that one. The apparent
> consensus is simply because the wet blankets don't get the press
> coverage.
True. Could this perhaps be at least one reason why revisionists don't get
equal air time in the media, so to speak?
> In history, the same process is at work even if it is complicated by
> by a much larger data set and by the vagaries of interpreting human
> agency and motivation. Nevertheless, a reliable consensus is reached
> on large order facts such as whether the Battle of Hastings occurred
> (even if there are no forensic studies of whether eleventh-century
> swords and pikes were effective weapons).
>
> It is revealing that the numbers of historians named as Revisionists
> is so small and includes so many names of historians who would be
> sickened at the thought of being associated with Revisionism (not to
> mention the number of names of non-historians).
Could the immediate (and certain!) blackballing, bad publicity and smear
campaign retribution have anything to do with this? You know, kinda like what
happened to David Irving.
> So far the list seems
> to be James Martin and David Hoggan and should have included Harry
> Barnes. That doesn't strike me as a sample representing the consensus
> of opinion in the community of historians. In fact, it strikes me as a
> list of names of historians who have ended up being marginalized
> because their arguments didn't make the final cut.
Are you saying that 'official' history is decided by, in essence, popular vote?
Isn't that what Napoleon claimed when he said, 'History is an agreed upon
fable' (or something similar)?
> Conspiracy nuts will, of course, view their marginalization as further
> proof of the power of the Holocaust hoax conspiracy. But they would do
> well to bear in mind that Daniel Goldhagen will probably suffer a
> similar fate once the first flush of popularity blows over.
I doubt that it will matter to him. He's already made $$$$$, and that's what
non-historical Holocaustamania is all about, right?
[.sig deleted]
John Morris
Anthony's original reply hasn't shown up here, but subsequent posts
have. I thought I'd jump in here while the incipient flame war is
still incipient.
In <mvanalst-050...@rbi145.rbi.com>, on Tue, 05 Aug 1997
01:24:41 -0800, mvan...@rbi.com (Mark Van Alstine) wrote:
>In article <01bca143$3a1cd4a0$0f55eccd@odin>, "Anthony Sabatini"
><anth...@infobahnos.com> wrote:
>> John Morris <check.the...@nospam.ualberta.edu> wrote in article
>> <33e4e3d4...@news.srv.ualberta.ca>...
>> [snip]
>> > This is the first post to address the real issue in listing the names
>> > of historians. In science, the opinion of one researcher doesn't count
>> > for much until a consensus of opinion is reached among most of the
>> > researchers in a field. The final stage of proof is not in simply
>> > making a case, but in making a case which satisfies the interested
>> > community of scholars. For instance, while most everyone who has been
>> > paying attention probably now believes that there was microbial life
>> > on Mars at some point, the jury is still out on that one. The apparent
>> > consensus is simply because the wet blankets don't get the press
>> > coverage.
>> True. Could this perhaps be at least one reason why revisionists don't get
>> equal air time in the media, so to speak?
Equal with whom? Creationists? UFOlogists? You are assuming that
Revisionists are practicing history. The IHR and CODOH (really the
same people--CODOH is the IHR's web project) are quite open about what
they do, and I am surprised by the number of people who miss the
point. Revisionism is all about delegitimizing Zionism. Normally, I
wouldn't have a problem with that, but I do resent the falsification
of history being used as a political weapon. Revisionism is
pseudohistory in the service of politics. And yes, I do resent it when
Zionists do the same thing.
>More likely is simply because they are anti-Semitic crackpots.
>> > In history, the same process is at work even if it is complicated by
>> > by a much larger data set and by the vagaries of interpreting human
>> > agency and motivation. Nevertheless, a reliable consensus is reached
>> > on large order facts such as whether the Battle of Hastings occurred
>> > (even if there are no forensic studies of whether eleventh-century
>> > swords and pikes were effective weapons).
>> > It is revealing that the numbers of historians named as Revisionists
>> > is so small and includes so many names of historians who would be
>> > sickened at the thought of being associated with Revisionism (not to
>> > mention the number of names of non-historians).
>> Could the immediate (and certain!) blackballing, bad publicity and smear
>> campaign retribution have anything to do with this? You know, kinda like what
>> happened to David Irving.
I'll take the antecedent of "this" to be the small numbers of
Revisionist historians. Your argument is simply a variation on the
persistent theme that being persecuted proves you are right. The
problem with this variation is twofold. First, how do we know whether
there are any academic Revisionists who refuse to speak out because
they are afraid of persecution if they will not speak out? Second, why
are Revisionists so unique in their intellectual cowardice? Phillipe
Rushton has been smeared and attacked yet he still has his job, and he
has an impressive list of publications in quite respectable scholarly
journals. I would suggest that his opinions are far more controversial
than any Revisionist's and of far greater public impact.
>More likely is simply because they are anti-Semitic crackpots.
>> > So far the list seems
>> > to be James Martin and David Hoggan and should have included Harry
>> > Barnes. That doesn't strike me as a sample representing the consensus
>> > of opinion in the community of historians. In fact, it strikes me as a
>> > list of names of historians who have ended up being marginalized
>> > because their arguments didn't make the final cut.
>> Are you saying that 'official' history is decided by, in essence,
>> popular vote?
I would be saying that were I a complete simpleton. When I said
"consensus" I meant "consensus," not "voting." Consensus is developed
through discussion and debate. Both sides must modify their views to
some extent, or a consensus cannot be reached. Voting is an altogether
different process. Whatever discussion, debate, and amendment precedes
a vote, it is still a binary choice.
>No, more like "the consensus of opinion in the community of historians."
>> Isn't that what Napoleon claimed when he said, 'History is an agreed upon
>> fable' (or something similar)?
>No.
No. I assume that what Napoleon meant by "fable" was "fiction." The
last time someone used "fable" to mean "story" without a value
judgment as to its truth or falsehood must have been around 1500 and
even then that was a rare usage. I don't even see it in the OED so
maybe I am misremembering the usage after Cicero's time.
Historians today are interested in what is verifiably and reliably
true, regardless of the cynicism of some of the a.r know-nothings.
>> > Conspiracy nuts will, of course, view their marginalization as further
>> > proof of the power of the Holocaust hoax conspiracy. But they would do
>> > well to bear in mind that Daniel Goldhagen will probably suffer a
>> > similar fate once the first flush of popularity blows over.
>> I doubt that it will matter to him.
>Probably not.
It remains to be seen. I don't know if he has been offered a position
yet. If not, the general panning he has taken at the hands of other
scholars may prevent him from get a plum job, though he will probably
get some kind of job.
>> He's already made $$$$$, and that's what non-historical Holocaustamania
>> is all about, right?
Perhaps. It is too broad a generalization. But I doubt that was what
Goldhagen was about. He could hardly have predicted that his PhD
dissertation would be a commercial success. Dissertations, and
Holocaust books, rarely are commercially successful, regardless of the
cynicism of some of the a.r know-nothings.
jbel...@sprynet.com
> mvan...@rbi.com (Mark Van Alstine) writes:
.
>
> So, given the above, perhaps Mr. Bellinger would be kind enough to tell
> us which _Chef Oberaufseherin_ was _Oberaufseherin_ Grese's superior at
> Auschwitz?
REPLY: That is not necessary. My intent was merely to reveal another of
Perl's many lies, and I have done so. There were other females at the camp
who outranked Grese.
>
> Then, again, considering that Mr. Bellinger was apparantly unware that
> Grese was a _Oberaufseherin_ at Auschwitz, maybe not....
>
> > > >And Ms Grese's comments about the "gas chambers" are confused and highly
> > > >contradictory.
> > >
> > > How so?
> >
> > REPLY: I just explained it for you below.
>
> No. Mr. Bellinger's "I am sure we can all come up with a possibility" is
> not an explination -it is an evasion.
>
> > > > Rumors by prisoners simply do not count as evidence. Miss
> > > >Grese never witnessed an actual gassing nor did she ever even see the
> > > >alleged gas chamber.
> > >
> > > Then why did she mark those as selected as not returning. Quote her
> > > testimony. How does this testimony compare with Hoessler's and
> > > Kramer's.
> >
> > REPLY: Why? I am sure we can all come up with a possibility without
> > resorting to murder allegations.
>
> Such as?
>
> > > > And if there WAS one, speaking strictly
> > > >hypothetically, Ms. Grese was certainly not guilty of aiding and abetting
> > > >murder,
> > >
> > > Selecting those to be killed is not aiding murder? How so?
> >
> > REPLY: First you must demonstrate with convincing evidence that
> > they were indeed murdered...
>
> Convincing- and _convicting_ -evidence has _already_ been demonstrated by
> quite a few courts, war crimes tribunals, and historians that prisoners at
> Auschwitz (and elsewhere) were indeed murdered by the Nazis. In rhetorical
> terms, the great body of convergent evidence of Nazi mass murder is the
> _causa sine que non_ of the historical fact of the Holocaust.
REPLY: No, I am asking for specific evidence to prove that Grese sent
people to "gas chambers" which never existed except by rumour.
>
> > ...along with death ceritificates, etc. These people were registered
> > inmates in the camp and there would have to be some documentation on this.
>
> Following the prescedent established in the T4 progam, death certificates
> of prisoners murdered at Auschwitz were routinely falsified. (cf. Lifton,
> _The Nazi Doctors_, p.74-75,149,187,216.)
>
> > > > as she was only responsible for rounding up the inmates for
> > > >selections to be carried out by other individuals.
> > >
> > > She assisted in selections. She knew what was going on.
> >
> > REPLY: She knew they were being selected. As to what happened to
> > them after they were selected, which was not within her competency,
> > remains another issue.
>
> Again, according to Brown:
>
> <begin quote>
>
> ...Grese furher contended that once she had arranged the femal inmates in
> roll-call formation, SS-Doctor Josef Mengele would then appear and
> designate which prisoners would be transferred to Germany for work, which
> ones would remain to work in Birkenau, and which ones would recieve "S.B"
> (_Sonderbehanflung_, or "Special Treatment," was a Nazi euphanism for
> immediate extermination). Despite initially claiming that she never did
> any of the actual "selecting," Grese would admit in the second of her
> three pre-trial statements that she knew about the gas chambers at
> Auschwitz and that she did not protest the gassing of prisoners there.
>
> <end quote>
>
> Source: Brown, _The Beautiful Beast_, pp.41-42.
>
> Cf. Phillips, _The Belsen Trial_, pp.251,712.
>
> According to Grese:
>
> <begin quote>
>
> 7.I remember saying in the first statement I made to an English officer
> that "himmler is responsible for all that happened, but I suppuse I have
> as much guilt as all the others above me." I meant by this that simply
> being in the the S.S. and seeing the crimes committed on orders from those
> in authority and doing nothing to protest or stop them being committed
> makes anybody in the S.S. as quilty as anybody else. The crimes I refer to
> are the gassing of persons at Auschwitz and the killing of thousands at
> Belsen by starvation abd untended disease. I consider the crime to be
> murder.
>
> 8.I know about the gas chamber at Auschwitz because prisoners who worked
> in it told us about it. I only saw it myself from a distance, but I have
> no doubt that manyt were gassed there.
>
> <end quote>
>
> Source: Phillips, _The Belsen Trial_, p.712.
>
> > She never saw these rumored gas chambers...
>
> Grese admits seeing them "from a distance."
>
> > ...and until you demonsrtate with convincing evidence aside from rumors and
> > eyewitness testimony, which is highly contradictory and full of holes, one
> > must give her the benefit of the doubt.
>
> Grese admitted that prisoners were gassed at Auschwitz.
>
> > > > And who is to say with absolute certainty that these selected
> > > > individuals were always euthanized?
> > >
> > > What do Kramer and Hoessler say aboout this?
> >
> > REPLY: There you go again with these so called "eyewitnesses". I am
> > not impressed with their vcontradictory statements nor with the fact that
> > both of these men were beaten and brutalized. I demand forensic evidence
> > to support the claims.
>
> Evidence of such has been, and is, constantly posted to this group for
> years. That Mr. Belliger has somehow failed to comprehend this says much
> in regard his woefully inadequte "powers" of perception. These citations
> of evidence, for example, include:
>
> The the ruins of the Kremas. Photographs of the Kremas during their
> operation which shows mass incinerations taking place. Construction
> documents calling L.Kller1 a gassing celler (_Vergassunskeller_) and
> L.Keller 2 an undressing cellar (_Auskeidekeller_). Invoices for, and camp
> memos confirming the use of, Zyklon B without lachrymal. The presence of
> cyanides found on ventilation grill taken from the ruins of Krema II by
> the by the CRF in 1945. The presence of cyanides found in samples taken
> from the ruins of the gas chamber of Krema by the IFRC in 1994. Reichs
> Railways records showing hundreds of thousands of deportees sent to, but
> not from, Auschwitz etc. etc.
>
> And, of course, their is the multitude of eyewitness testimonies by both
> Nazis and survivors that corroborates the "forensic" evidence and thus
> unquestionably confirms that homicidal gassings cum mass murder took place
> at Auschwitz.
>
> > > > Where is the forensic evidence? What were their identities? Where is
> > > >the confirmation through death reports and so on?
> > >
> > > This has been answered before.
> >
> > REPLY: No, it hasn't and it has never been provided.
>
> See above.
>
> > > >As to the rest of the testimony, it smacks of simple revenge and spite,
> > >
> > > Victims shouldn't do that, should they?
> >
> > REPLY: It is natural, but hardly convincing evidence.
>
> See above.
>
> > > >and I have read it and reread it and given you every opportunity of
> > > >convincing me that their testimony has credibility, but in all sincerity,
> > > >I cannot find any reason for believing the witnesses you provided for our
> > > >scrutiny.
> > >
> > > Because you say so.
> >
> > REPLY: I just wrote that "I" cannot find reason....
>
> Obviously, then, Mr. Belliger's "powers" of perception leaves much to be
> desired as the evidence has been staring him in the face for quite some
> time now....
>
> > > >It is still my contention that this girl did not deserve the imposition of
> > > >the death penalty based upon what transpired during the course of her
> > > >"trial." It all smacks of a hateful, hysterical, feminine witch hunt,
> > >
> > > What of Hoessler and Kramer?
> >
> > REPLY: We can discuss them another time.
>
> Translation: "Please, after yet another shellackin', let me just crawl
> back uner my rock..."
>
> > > >similar to the Salem Witchcraft "Trials" and the crazed, denunciations of
> > > >hysterical and vengeful female shrikes.
> > >
> > > How do you know that this happened?
> > >
> > > > Have you seen the recent movie,
> > > >"The Crucible?" If not, I heartily recommend that you watch it, as it is
> > > >very similar in substance to the "trial" of Irma Grese....
> > >
> > > I've seen it. It doesn't apply to Grese. It is also a play written to
> > > address the Red Scare in the United States. The Salem case is much
> > > more complex than that. But again, how do you know it happened ih the
> > > first place?
> >
> > REPLY: I believe it DOES apply to Grese and many other accused.
>
> Belief without substantiated evidence is simply, at best, dogma. In Mr.
> Bellinger's case it is the fanatical dogma of an anti-Semitic lying
> scumbag Nazi apologist.
>
> http://www.dejanews.com/
> http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/b/bellinger.joseph
> http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/b/bellinger.joseph/lies
> http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/b/bellinger.joseph/1996/blackmore.0996
> http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/b/bellinger.joseph/1996/blackmore.1096
> http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/b/bellinger.joseph/1996/blackmore.1196
> http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/b/bellinger.joseph/1996/blackmore.1296
> http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/b/bellinger.joseph/1997/blackmore.0197
> http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/b/bellinger.joseph/1996/tutu101.1296
> http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/b/bellinger.joseph/1997/fafner13.0197
> http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/b/bellinger.joseph/1996/anyone-out-there-12-1
>
Anthony Sabatini
> Anthony's original reply hasn't shown up here, but subsequent posts
> have. I thought I'd jump in here while the incipient flame war is
> still incipient.
Of course, certain sanctimonious hypocrites here in alt.revisionism simply
refuse to castigate those responsible for "flame wars" if said person happens
to sit on their side of the fence, so to speak.
> In <mvanalst-050...@rbi145.rbi.com>, on Tue, 05 Aug 1997
> 01:24:41 -0800, mvan...@rbi.com (Mark Van Alstine) wrote:
>
> >In article <01bca143$3a1cd4a0$0f55eccd@odin>, "Anthony Sabatini"
> ><anth...@infobahnos.com> wrote:
>
> >> John Morris <check.the...@nospam.ualberta.edu> wrote in article
> >> <33e4e3d4...@news.srv.ualberta.ca>...
>
> >> [snip]
>
> >> > This is the first post to address the real issue in listing the names
> >> > of historians. In science, the opinion of one researcher doesn't count
> >> > for much until a consensus of opinion is reached among most of the
> >> > researchers in a field. The final stage of proof is not in simply
> >> > making a case, but in making a case which satisfies the interested
> >> > community of scholars. For instance, while most everyone who has been
> >> > paying attention probably now believes that there was microbial life
> >> > on Mars at some point, the jury is still out on that one. The apparent
> >> > consensus is simply because the wet blankets don't get the press
> >> > coverage.
>
> >> True. Could this perhaps be at least one reason why revisionists don't get
> >> equal air time in the media, so to speak?
>
> Equal with whom? Creationists? UFOlogists?
No, equal to so-called Holocaust historians. You know, Holo-docudramas,
God-awful movies, et al. Besides, UFOlologists _do_ get a lot of air time;
haven't you ever watched A&E or TLC?
> You are assuming that
> Revisionists are practicing history. The IHR and CODOH (really the
> same people--CODOH is the IHR's web project) are quite open about what
> they do, and I am surprised by the number of people who miss the
> point. Revisionism is all about delegitimizing Zionism.
No, some people _use_ revisionism to "delegitimizing Zionism". The _concept_ of
revisionism is simply an historical issue. But then again, certain
sanctimonious hypocrites here in a.r. are too prejudice to make that subtle
distinction.
> Normally, I
> wouldn't have a problem with that, but I do resent the falsification
> of history being used as a political weapon.
LOL! You're kidding, right? So tell us, John, what do you think about B'nai
B'rith, ADL, JDL, et al.?
> Revisionism is
> pseudohistory in the service of politics. And yes, I do resent it when
> Zionists do the same thing.
So you fully condemn scumbag opportunists such as B'nai B'rith, ADL, SWC, et
al., right?
> >More likely is simply because they are anti-Semitic crackpots.
>
> >> > In history, the same process is at work even if it is complicated by
> >> > by a much larger data set and by the vagaries of interpreting human
> >> > agency and motivation. Nevertheless, a reliable consensus is reached
> >> > on large order facts such as whether the Battle of Hastings occurred
> >> > (even if there are no forensic studies of whether eleventh-century
> >> > swords and pikes were effective weapons).
>
> >> > It is revealing that the numbers of historians named as Revisionists
> >> > is so small and includes so many names of historians who would be
> >> > sickened at the thought of being associated with Revisionism (not to
> >> > mention the number of names of non-historians).
>
> >> Could the immediate (and certain!) blackballing, bad publicity and smear
> >> campaign retribution have anything to do with this? You know, kinda like
what
> >> happened to David Irving.
>
> I'll take the antecedent of "this" to be the small numbers of
> Revisionist historians. Your argument is simply a variation on the
> persistent theme that being persecuted proves you are right.
Not at all. I am merely saying that perhaps more historians would come out in
the open were it not for the inevitable flood of "blackballing, bad publicity
and smear campaigns".
> The
> problem with this variation is twofold. First, how do we know whether
> there are any academic Revisionists who refuse to speak out because
> they are afraid of persecution if they will not speak out?
It is a distinct possibility. That is all, of course.
> Second, why
> are Revisionists so unique in their intellectual cowardice?
Because they seen the results of speaking out? cf.
http://www.codoh.com/thoughtcrimes/thoughtcrimes.html
> Phillipe
> Rushton has been smeared and attacked yet he still has his job, and he
> has an impressive list of publications in quite respectable scholarly
> journals. I would suggest that his opinions are far more controversial
> than any Revisionist's and of far greater public impact.
How so?
> >More likely is simply because they are anti-Semitic crackpots.
>
> >> > So far the list seems
> >> > to be James Martin and David Hoggan and should have included Harry
> >> > Barnes. That doesn't strike me as a sample representing the consensus
> >> > of opinion in the community of historians. In fact, it strikes me as a
> >> > list of names of historians who have ended up being marginalized
> >> > because their arguments didn't make the final cut.
>
> >> Are you saying that 'official' history is decided by, in essence,
> >> popular vote?
>
> I would be saying that were I a complete simpleton. When I said
> "consensus" I meant "consensus," not "voting."
And when I said "in essence", I meant "in essence". Try again.
> Consensus is developed
> through discussion and debate. Both sides must modify their views to
> some extent, or a consensus cannot be reached. Voting is an altogether
> different process. Whatever discussion, debate, and amendment precedes
> a vote, it is still a binary choice.
And when I said "in essence", I meant "in essence". Try again.
> >No, more like "the consensus of opinion in the community of historians."
>
> >> Isn't that what Napoleon claimed when he said, 'History is an agreed upon
> >> fable' (or something similar)?
>
> >No.
>
> No. I assume that what Napoleon meant by "fable" was "fiction." The
> last time someone used "fable" to mean "story" without a value
> judgment as to its truth or falsehood must have been around 1500 and
> even then that was a rare usage. I don't even see it in the OED so
> maybe I am misremembering the usage after Cicero's time.
So is it similar to what he said or not?
> Historians today are interested in what is verifiably and reliably
> true, regardless of the cynicism of some of the a.r know-nothings.
Really? How do you know this? Perhaps some sanctimonious hypocrite here in a.r.
will publish some statistics concerning this matter...?
> >> > Conspiracy nuts will, of course, view their marginalization as further
> >> > proof of the power of the Holocaust hoax conspiracy. But they would do
> >> > well to bear in mind that Daniel Goldhagen will probably suffer a
> >> > similar fate once the first flush of popularity blows over.
>
> >> I doubt that it will matter to him.
>
> >Probably not.
>
> It remains to be seen. I don't know if he has been offered a position
> yet. If not, the general panning he has taken at the hands of other
> scholars may prevent him from get a plum job, though he will probably
> get some kind of job.
>
> >> He's already made $$$$$, and that's what non-historical Holocaustamania
> >> is all about, right?
>
> Perhaps. It is too broad a generalization. But I doubt that was what
> Goldhagen was about. He could hardly have predicted that his PhD
> dissertation would be a commercial success.
Perhaps that was his goal?
> Dissertations, and
> Holocaust books, rarely are commercially successful, regardless of the
> cynicism of some of the a.r know-nothings.
Truly? Perhaps some sanctimonious hypocrite here in a.r. will publish some
statistics concerning this matter...?
[.sig snipped]
Mark Van Alstine
In article <5s9l51$99c$8...@juliana.sprynet.com>, jbel...@sprynet.com wrote:
> > mi...@aimetering.com (Mike Curtis) writes:
> > fafn...@aol.com (Fafner13) wrote:
> >
> > >>The case was already made by the English prosecutors. You are the
> > >>revisionist. You make the claim that the transcripts show her to be
> > >>innocent yet you have fasiled to provide this evidence.
> > >>
> > >
> > >REPLY: Nonsense. You are a hypocrite, plain and simple. I am not
> > >interested in convincing you of anything. It is impossible to make the
> > >blind see.
> >
> > Blind to what?
> >
> > >>No, this was the Belsen Trial. You haven't yet told me how you know
> > >>the Salem Witch Trials happened yet. There is no forensic evidence
> > >>that a trial ever took place. There are no pictures of the event and
> > >>there are no living witnesses to call liars. What is there that tells
> > >>you what went down in 1692 Salem
> > >
> > >REPLY: Another diversion. That dog don't hunt/
> >
> > As Gord pointed out: You brought up Salem. I asked for your evidence
> > that says it really occurred.
> >
> > >>Of course you do. You have no arguments other than to call people
> > >>liars.
> > >
> > >REPLY: You might want to give the same censure to your comarades.
> >
> > My concern is your approach to evidence.
> >
> > >>. You are no expert and therefore should
> > >>substantiate the reasons for your assertions.
> > >
> > >REPLY: But I am an expert. It is up to you to provide convincing
> > >evidence.
> >
> > See Gord McFee's reply to you on this subject. I have nothing to add.
> >
> > >>Of course you do. Who ever said you do not have the right to be wrong?
> > >>I have just as much right to call you on those opinions since you
> > >>present them as fact.
> > >
> > >REPLY: I have never presented an educated opinion as a fact.
> >
> > You've never presented an educated opinion.
> >
> > > It is up to
> > >you to provide the facts as to why this girl should have been hanged, and
> > >you have failed,
> >
> > How did I fail?
> >
> > > and do not refer to that Kangaroo court for your support,
> >
> > Prove it was a kangaroo court.
> >
> > >otherwise I will expose you (AGAIN) as a hypocrite who refuses to apply
> > >the same standards of evaluation when examining cases of Jews convicted of
> > >crimes by the same method.
> >
> > Ad hominem attack when faced with defeat, Bellinger?
> >
> > >>Yet you can't seem to do much more than to ignore the whole picture of
> > >>her case and call all witnesses liars. You even called Grese a liar
> > >>several times in the past.
> > >
> > >REPLY: If the witnesses did not immediately strike me as being outrageous
> > >liars, I would not say so publicly.
> >
> > Of course you would. That's the game you play.
> >
> > > I have stated that Grese seemed much
> > >more credible than the witnesses who appeared against her.
> >
> > Good, because her own testimony was her downfall.
> >
> > > The only
> > >problem I have with grese is that she agreed on things which were beyond
> > >her knowledge.
> >
> > Such as?
> >
> > >>She ordered people killed, tortured and beaten! She selected people
> > >>for the gas chambers.
> >
> > >REPLY: All right. So what if she ordered someone guilty of infractions
> > >in the camp to receive a beating. As if this does not occur in prisons
> > >throughout the world.
> >
> > Auschwitz was like other prisons? Which ones and how so? Why were
> > those 400,000 Hungarian Jews sent to Auschwitz, Bellinger? What crime
> > did those 400,000 commit?
> >
> > > I personally do not agree with it in most cases,
> > >but it depends upon the infraction, and this is not a reason to put her to
> > >death.
> > >
> > >Also, where will you prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she ordered
> > >people to be tortured? I have read NO convincing evidence to that effect.
> >
> > What is convincing to you and to that court is a matter for you to
> > distinguish with evidence of your own.
> >
> > > germans were also torutred during and after the war and on many occasions
> >
> > We are talking about Irma Grese's case.
> >
> > >murdered, but hyopocrites like yourself did nothing to bring their
> > >murderers to justice or at least have a day in court.
> >
> > Appeared to be a legal sentence, Bellinger. Are you now questioning
> > the authority of the court. What legal basis are you going to provide
> > us with to substantiate this assertion?
> >
> > > You write that she
> > >selected people---for the "gas chambers--which she never saw and claimed
> > >existed on the basis of inmate rumours!
> >
> > She said she saw it at a distance. So did Volkanrath. Interesting that
> > they both came up with the same claim, don't you think?
> >
> > > This is idiotic. She
> > >participated in selections, and the people were then turned over to the
> > >custody of other officials in the camp. That is all their is to it.
> >
> > That's not how she explained it, Bellinger.
> >
> > > You
> > >nor anyone else has ever proven that these individuals were murdered.
> >
> > Which individuals? The 400,000 Hungarian Jews? Where did they go,
> > Bellinger?
> >
> > >>>REPLY: Are you suggesting that these camps werre only populated by law
> > >>>abiding inmates, or there was no overt hostility against the Nazis?
> > >>
> > >>What did Perl do to get thrown into Auschwitz?
> > >>What did Iona Stein do?
> > >>What did Abraham Glinowieski do?
> > >>What did Lidia Sunschein do?
> > >>What did Helen Klein do?
> > >>What did Dr. Charles Sigmund Bendel do other than not wear a Star of
> > >>David?
> > >
> > >REPLY: Michael, what did the Japanese do to be interred in America? The
> >
> > Oops, he's not answering the question.
> >
> > >Jews at the time were considered by the NS Govt to be potentially hostile
> > >and were taken into protective custody.
> >
> > What were the 400,000 Hungarian Jews doing before they were
> > transported, Bellinger? What was Anne Frank and her family doing
> > before they were transported, Bellinger?
> >
> > > At any rate, Grese was not
> > >responsible for the policies of her country anymore than the American
> > >guards of the Nisei.
> > >And still you avoided my question: You KNOW that many of the inmates in
> > >these camps, both Jewish and non-Jewish, were dangerous individuals,
> > >criminals, and so on. Simply admit that fact.
> >
> > What about the 400,000 Hungarian Jews, Bellinger?
> >
> > >
> > >>Tell me what the 400,000 Hungarian Jews did to get arrested.
> > >
> > >REPLY: They were within a threatened war zone, and were deported for what
> > >the NS Govt. determined were security reasons, as the Soviets approached.
> >
> > Why did the Hungarian government resist having them deported for so
> > long, Bellinger?
> >
> > >>>Guns, whips, dogs and whatever else add to her weight. How much she
> > >>>>weighed is pretty pointless. The Dorchester(?) Ripper was pretty light
> > >>>>also, I understand, yet he did away with several innocent women.
> > >>>
> > >>>REPLY: She isn't the Dorchester Ripper. Get a grip on reality. Nor
> > >did
> > >>>she have a dog at Auschwitz.
> >
> > Testimony said she did. whether she owned it or not is another
> > question entirely.
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > >>Am I? Totally? Or do I look at what they say as a whole and consider
> > >>what Grese said. Your so busy handwaving your arm is bound to fly
> > >>right off into outer space.
> > >>
> > >>>>
> > >
> > >I have read what Grese said and she denied their accusations for the most
> > >part.
> >
> > Actually she didn't for the most part. She weakly tried to mitigate
> > their claims.
> >
> >
> > Mike Curtis
> >
> >
> >
> >>>>
> The Hungarians were rounded up and interred for the same reasons as the
> Japanese here.
Is Mr. Bellinger suggesting that Japanese-Americans are Jews?
For those interested in proof of Mr. Bellinger's increasingly irrelevant
Nazi apologia, Holocaust denial, intellectual dishonesty, anti-Semitism,
and outright lies, please peruse DejaNews and visit the Nizkor Project at: