From: roger@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig)
Subject: Re: holocaust books
Originator: news@ernie.Princeton.EDU
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1992 03:02:12 GMT

In article <RHk2iB1w164w@jab.tucson.az.us> cr@jab.tucson.az.us (clint ruoho) writes:
>n2412@cray.com (Joe Green) writes:
>
>> Because there is no fucking other side to the Holocaust.  It's not as
>> if the inquirer wants to know whether Shakespeare or the Earl Of Oxford
>> wrote the plays. The "other side" of the Holocaust is that it didn't
>> happen or that the Nazis were maybe justified or that it matters
>> if 5 instead of 6 million Jews were killed.  Asking for books about
>> the "other side" implies that these assertions are other than the
>> vilest assertions to come along since the assertion that was the
>> Holocaust.  It implies that this can be the subject of rational
>> debate and is obscene because it is of a piece with the rationalization
>> of the victims of the Holocaust out of their existence.  It profanes
>> the dead and the living. Asking for the books as an example of pathology is 
>> another matter.  An interest in necrology is necessary to live. 

>Perhaps in a few generations our children will be able to discuss this 
>"holocaust" rationally.  However, as long as there are people who refuse to 
>discuss this issue, the truth may never be known.

What hidden "truth" do you suppose lurks under the surface? Where is the
lack of rational discussion?

Answer: with the revisionists, unless you call lies and distortions and
half-truths rational.

And who is refusing to discuss the issue?  From the evidence I've seen
on the net, it's the REVISIONISTS who refuse to discuss it.  They post
the same tripe over and over and over, even when it's been carefully
refuted point by point, with all the twisting and lying and
misinformation and irrelevancy and hokum pointed out.  

They never respnd to the postings that point out the lies.  They have
nothing to say to that.  They just wait until the fuss dies down and
then bring out the same tired bullshit, hoping that the next person who
reads can be duped.

THEY refuse to discuss the issue.  For they have no discussion to
offer.

>There in no reason why the "holocaust" should not be debated. 

How about: lack of evidence against?  The so-called "revisionists" have
NEVER produced anything but distortions, misquotations, and outright
lies.  EVERYTHING they have ever presented can be, and has been, easily
refuted.

> The 
>possibility does exist, that these revisionist historians like Arthur Butz 
>are correct in their assertions.  

The possibility also exists that Adolf Hitler was actually a ballet
dancer in Sweden in the early 19th century, and that somebody completely
different ran Germany from 1933 to 1945.

But there's no evidence, and plenty against.

The same situation obtains with Butz's theories.  He has no evidence
for, and masses of evidence against.  His methods of gathering evidence
and of presenting it have also been shown to be completely fraudulent.

The trouble with all of the "holocaust revisionism," aside from its
being a pathetic attempt to legitimize the horrors of Nazism, is that
the Nazis carefully documented much of what  they did.  How could
literally millions of documents, and thousands of films, and all the
physical plants of the death camps have been forged in a matter of
months?  The evidence was uncovered immediately after the Allied
liberation of those places, and immediately publicized.  

But the "revisionists" don't want you to know this. 

Read what they write.  Then read REAL history of the Holocaust.  Their
methods will become clear to you almost immediately: they inundate you
with irrelevancy, half-truth, tehcnical-sounding bullshit, and plain
lies by the carload.  

And their purpose is perfectly clear.


>I am not God, and thus, I do not know the answer.

Do you know who was the first President of the United States?   Do you
know what cities the atomic bomb was dropped on?  Do you feel you need
to be God to speak with any authority on these matters, or is the
unanimous consensus of those who have studied the matter sufficient? 

Now, tell me what the problem is with the mechanized mass murder of
civilians by the Nazis in WWII.  (Note: it's far better documented than
the 1789 presidential election.)

>In my heart, I am neutral on this issue, 

You seem to have left your brain in neutral as well.

>and I would really like to read an 
>appropriately balanced view of the "holocaust" which takes Revisionst 
>theories into account.

WHAT?  

I suppose you want gynecology textbooks to have a chapter on storks,
too.  And another one on cabbage leaves.

Look: the "holocaust revisionist" guys have been shown to be liars any
number of times.  Any moron can refute their so-called arguments; courts
of law have gone so far to extract admissions from them that the things
they denied had, in fact, occurred.  

Why do you suppose that any nut who comes down the pike and wishes to
claim that, say, Abraham Lincoln was actually a woman, automatically has
the right to have his or her hallucinations treated in a "balanced"
manner?  

The burden of proof is on THEM.  And they have responded with a pack of
disgusting lies that make their intentions perfectly palin.  They are
rabid anti-semites who have dicovered that the mantle of "science" can
be worn by those withing to fool the uninformed.  They are scabrous
liars.  

Furthermore, their connections with neo-Nazi groups are well-documented.
They have an INTEREST in promoting the particular lies they are
spreading.

Roger

Newsgroups: rec.arts.books