IHR 12th Conference
Jamie McCarthy
> You will all be happy to learn the the 12th IHR Revisionist Conference was
> a smashing success. Sorry more of you couldn't be there.
Does this mean you're now joining us again, Mr. Raven?
Would you like us to re-summarize the topics which you have up to this point
scrupulously avoided? We're waiting for answers from you on quite a number
of subjects.
And, I again say to you -- if you really want the May 4th response to be
reposted for the 7th or 8th time, all you have to do is email me and let me
know, and I'll be happy to do so, but until then I'm not going to waste
bandwidth. Or, I'll be happy to send you an email copy (again).
--
Jamie McCarthy Internet: k04...@hobbes.kzoo.edu AppleLink: j.mccarthy
I speak for no one but myself.
Ross Vicksell
: You will all be happy to learn the the 12th IHR Revisionist Conference was
: a smashing success. Sorry more of you couldn't be there.
: --
: Greg Raven (greg...@earthlink.net)
Some of you might question the objectivity of Greg's report, since he was
M.C. at the affair.
Therefore, some of us disinterested alt.revisionists who were there are
preparing a more detailed report. Included will be David Cole's talk
about Michael Shermer and transcripts of Shermer telephone conversations
with David, Michael Berenbaum, and Debbie Lipstadt. I think you'll find
it interesting.
Ross Vicksell
Ed Overman
I hate to break it to you, but I think that there is an underwhelming desire
for information about your little love-fest. However, if you feel you MUST
tell us all the mushy details, I have a suggestion for making your report
easier for us to understand. If you recall, I played your little game about
Berg's speech (by the way, did I win?). I am sure that the titles I listed
are appropriate for most, if not all, of the speeches. Below I enumerate
the titles I thought up. How about when you refer to the various speeches
you affix the number of the title that comes closest to describing the
contents of the speech?
1) "Ten (sort of) not-nice things to say about Adolf so people won't think
we're all Nazis"
2) "Ten (sort of) nice things to say about nig..., er, negros so people won't
think we're all KKKers"
3) "Logic and how to misuse it"
4) "Speed misreading for fun and profit (or, I never saw a quote I couldn't
garble)"
5) "How to confuse the issue when you really screw things up"
6) "Chemistry for fun and profit (or, Why Zyclon-B kills lice but not people)"
7) "Why the federal income tax is unconstitutional"
8) "Learning German in three easy steps (or, How to read a German-English
dictionary and not make an ass of yourself)"
9) "How to get on TV and not make an ass of yourself"
10) "How to get on the Internet and not make an ass of yourself"
11) "How to make money in your spare time selling Zundel's nazi memorabelia"
12) "How to talk good and influince peple"
13) "How to pass the GED and get a big raise at work"
14) "Why communism is a Jewish conspiracy"
15) "Why capitalism is a Jewish conspiracy"
16) "Why the US government is a Jewish conspiracy"
17) "Why everything is a Jewish conspiracy"
18) "Why everyone who is against us is a Jew"
19) "How to tell a Jew thousands of miles away on the Internet (and what to call
him when you do)"
20) "Why French literature professors make the best chemists"
21) "Why history majors make the best engineers and chemists"
22) "Creative arithmetic (or, Where all the Jews went)"
23) "Why WE are the shining light of the white race"
Greg Raven
a smashing success. Sorry more of you couldn't be there.
--
Greg Raven (greg...@earthlink.net)
Institute for Historical Review/PO Box 2739/Newport Beach, CA 92659
The Journal of Historical Review, 6 times/year, $40
The Hoax of the Twentieth Century, $10.00 + $1.00 shipping
Wayne McGuire
greg...@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven) wrote:
//You will all be happy to learn the the 12th IHR Revisionist Conference was
//a smashing success. Sorry more of you couldn't be there.
So big hot deal.
Mr. Raven: are you willing to sit still and engage in a SERIOUS
debate here, or are you just a hit and run kind of guy who really
lacks the courage of your convictions?
This has been my honest experience in attempting a few times to
debate revisionists: at the first substantive challenge to any of
their assertions, they turn tail and run. They simply disappear.
Take the issue of internal Nazi memos which strongly indicate
official genocidal activity and intent on the part of the Nazis.
You asked for best evidence. You got it, from Danny Keren, Ken
Mcvay and others. You failed to reply. And so reasonable people
are getting the impression that you are a fraud and a neo-Nazi
propagandist, and nothing more.
Comments? Are you willing to engage in serious debate or not?
What about Bradley Smith? Is he a serious person or also a hit
and run fraudmeister?
If there is anything worse than being a Nazi, it is being a
dishonest chickenshit.
(I promise you my language in a formal debate will be much more
dignified. But I don't think any of the revisionists have the
courage or confidence to submit themselves to the standards of a
formal debate.)
Greg Raven
k04...@hobbes.kzoo.edu (Jamie McCarthy) wrote:
> greg...@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven) wrote:
>
> > You will all be happy to learn the the 12th IHR Revisionist Conference was
> > a smashing success. Sorry more of you couldn't be there.
>
> Does this mean you're now joining us again, Mr. Raven?
Not yet. My Internet connection is still extremely finicky ... I am at a
complete loss as to why it suddenly will not work. The service provider
made some sort of change a couple of weekends ago, and since then,
NewsWatcher connects up once in about 2 dozen attempts, and Eudora
virtually never connects up, and when it does, it transfers the first
message, and then the host computer goes off into never-never land.
I am exploring other options, but they are all rather expensive for the
time being.
--
Greg Raven (greg...@kaiwan.com)
Danny Keren
# If they had a plan to kill the Jews, why should their memos merely
# "strongly indicate" this?
Surely, even Vicksell understands that a report about the execution of
over 130,000 Jews (third of them children), in one area, by one unit,
during 5 months, is more than a "strong indication".
# Why wouldn't they come right out and say it?
They obviously do.
# After all, they were convinced they were going to win the war. And they
# didn't hide the T4 program, you may recall.
You ignorant clown. Of course they tried to hide the T4 program.
-Danny Keren.
Ross Vicksell
: This has been my honest experience in attempting a few times to
: debate revisionists: at the first substantive challenge to any of
: their assertions, they turn tail and run. They simply disappear.
: Take the issue of internal Nazi memos which strongly indicate
: official genocidal activity and intent on the part of the Nazis.
: You asked for best evidence. You got it, from Danny Keren, Ken
: Mcvay and others. You failed to reply.
If they had a plan to kill the Jews, why should their memos merely
"strongly indicate" this? Why wouldn't they come right out and say it?
After all, they were convinced they were going to win the war. And they
didn't hide the T4 program, you may recall. The Holocaust affirmers have
to do a lot of reading between the lines.
Ross Vicksell
Gordon McFee
In a previous article, cod...@netcom.com (Ross Vicksell) says:
>Wayne McGuire (wmcg...@world.std.com) wrote:
>
>: This has been my honest experience in attempting a few times to
>: debate revisionists: at the first substantive challenge to any of
>: their assertions, they turn tail and run. They simply disappear.
>
>: Take the issue of internal Nazi memos which strongly indicate
>: official genocidal activity and intent on the part of the Nazis.
>: You asked for best evidence. You got it, from Danny Keren, Ken
>: Mcvay and others. You failed to reply.
>
> If they had a plan to kill the Jews, why should their memos merely
>"strongly indicate" this? Why wouldn't they come right out and say it?
>After all, they were convinced they were going to win the war. And they
>didn't hide the T4 program, you may recall. The Holocaust affirmers have
>to do a lot of reading between the lines.
Bull, Ross. You know very well that the Nazis *tried* to hide the T4
program; it's when word of it got out, and the bishops started raising
hell that Hitler called it off. And the internal Nazi memos and ravings
do say *CLEARLY* that the goal was to kill the Jews--men, women and
children. My source? The Reichsfuehrer-SS himself. Stay tuned.
--
Gordon McFee ai292
I'll write no line before its time!
Barry Shein
From: cod...@netcom.com (Ross Vicksell)
>: Take the issue of internal Nazi memos which strongly indicate
>: official genocidal activity and intent on the part of the Nazis.
>: You asked for best evidence. You got it, from Danny Keren, Ken
>: Mcvay and others. You failed to reply.
>
> If they had a plan to kill the Jews, why should their memos merely
>"strongly indicate" this? Why wouldn't they come right out and say it?
They were memos about the process, certainly some specifically
discussed mass killing and precisely what the revisionists seek to
deny.
When an American officer wrote a memo about some operation I doubt he
often described the generalities either, just the specifics of what he
was trying to communicate. Would you expect to find ``We need another
100,000 rounds of 9mm so we can continue to kill the Nazis in WWII''?
Or just ``We need another 100,000 rounds of 9mm'' (more or less.)
Would you use that omission as evidence that perhaps they weren't
killing Nazi soldiers since it wasn't mentioned? Or that WWII never
occurred?
Actually, the memos were far more specific and in some cases totally
unambiguous (See Below.)
Also note that the extermination process was, by official order, a
SECRET affair, in the military sense. When that's the case you never
communicate more than you absolutely have to, particularly in writing,
that's just SOP in modern military operations.
But still plenty was recorded in those memos.
>After all, they were convinced they were going to win the war.
The US has always been quite convinced they would win the cold war,
but they still had draconian notions of classified and top-secret and
general military prudence in effect.
That's not a very good argument, in a war all soldiers know you stick
to the absolute essentials in communications. Moreso if you're
involved in something so obviously reprehensible as these fellows were
engaged in.
If you want a rational reason I can give you one tho I hardly think
it's necessary to provide rational reasoning for lunatics (the Nazi SS
I mean):
Some time in 1943 I guess it was the Nazis "tried" and executed a
bunch of US soldiers and published this fact with glee in their
newspapers.
Upon hearing of this General Eisenhower at his camp in France called a
full dress assembly for all members of his camp (not sure exactly
which camp but the one right next to Cherbourg he used as HQ just
after D-Day.)
Eisenhower also ordered all available press at camp and put them near
the front of the reviewing stand.
He then marched out a similar number of German POWs, told the press to
ready its cameras, and ordered them shot. Copies of the photos were
collected and sent to Berlin. The Nazis never executed another
American POW (well, perhaps spies, but no field soldiers captured as
POWs.)
Perhaps that's some hint why a military command with the slightest
common sense would hide a mass killing operation like
Auschwitz-Birkenau during a war. It doesn't take too much imagination
to conjure up what the retributions may be.
>And they
>didn't hide the T4 program, you may recall.
Really? I believe they did.
But referring back to my retribution point although the Allies may,
upon hearing about this, feel sickened I doubt they'd take serious
retribution for something like this. And besides T4 was very early in
the war, before the possibility of retribution may have been entering
into the Nazi mentality. Obviously they were quite full of themselves
until perhaps the reality began sinking in.
>The Holocaust affirmers have
>to do a lot of reading between the lines.
Tell me how much reading between the lines you have to do with the
following memo, I think you're just making this stuff up hoping that
someone unfamiliar with the memos in question might fall for this
characterization you're presenting:
"..the unfit go to cellars in a large house which are entered
from outside. They go down five or six steps into a fairly long,
well-constructed and well-ventilated cellar area, which is lined
with benches to the left and right. It is brightly lit, and
the benches are numbered. The prisoners are told that they are to
be cleansed and disinfected for their new assignments. They must therefore
completely undress to be bathed. To avoid panic and to prevent
disturbances of any kind, they are instructed to arrange their
clothing neatly under their respective numbers, so that they will
be able to find their things again after their bath. Everything
proceeds in a perfectly orderly fashion. Then they pass through
a small corridor and enter a large cellar room which resembles a
shower bath. In this room are three large pillars, into which
certain materials can be lowered from outside the cellar room.
When three- to four-hundred people have been herded into this room,
the doors are shut, and containers filled with the substances are
dropped down into the pillars. As soon as the containers touch
the base of the pillars, they release particular substances that put
the people to sleep in one minute. A few minutes later, the door opens
on the other side, where the elevator is located. . . . Then
the corpses are loaded into elevators and brought up to the first
floor, where ten large crematoria are located. (Because fresh
corpses burn particularly well, only 50-100 lbs. of coke are needed
for the whole process.) The job itself is performed by Jewish
prisoners, who never step outside this camp again.
The results of this `resettlement action' to date: 500,000 Jews
Current capacity of the `resettlement action' ovens: 10,000
in twenty-four hours."
--from report entitled "Resettlement of Jews"
written by SS-Sturmbannfuehrer Alfred Franke-Gricksch
for SS-Col. M. von Herff and RF-SS H. Himmler, after
inspection of Auschwitz camp on 14-16 May 1943. This
excerpt from "Hitler and the Final Solution" by
Gerald Fleming, ISBN 0-520-05103-3.
--
-Barry Shein
Software Tool & Die | b...@world.std.com | uunet!world!bzs
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202 | Login: 617-739-WRLD
Jamie McCarthy
> Wayne McGuire (wmcg...@world.std.com) wrote:
>
> : Take the issue of internal Nazi memos which strongly indicate
> : official genocidal activity and intent on the part of the Nazis.
> : You asked for best evidence.
>
> If they had a plan to kill the Jews, why should their memos merely
> "strongly indicate" this? Why wouldn't they come right out and say it?
> After all, they were convinced they were going to win the war. And they
> didn't hide the T4 program, you may recall. The Holocaust affirmers have
> to do a lot of reading between the lines.
Like when Himmler came out and said this?
Ich meine jetzt die I am now referring to the
Judenevakuierung, die evacuation of the Jews, to the
Ausrottung des juedischen extermination of the Jewish
Volkes. Es gehoert zu den people. This is something
Dingen, die man leicht that is easily
ausspricht. - "Das juedische said: "The Jewish
Volk wird ausgerottet", sagt people will be exterminated,"
ein jeder Parteigenosse, "ganz says every Party member, "this
klar, steht in unserem is very obvious, it is in our
Programm, Ausschaltung der program -- elimination of the
Juden, Ausrottung, machen wir." Jews, extermination, will do."
How much "reading between the lines" is necessary, Mr. Vicksell, to
understand that "the extermination of the Jewish people" refers to
the extermination of the Jewish people?
--
Jamie McCarthy Internet: k04...@hobbes.kzoo.edu AppleLink: j.mccarthy
"You seem to be selectively defining words to suit yourself, and then
demanding that I accept your definitions." - Greg Raven, 8/26/94
"Do you understand that a testimony is not evidence?" - Greg Raven, 9/1/94