Revisionist snookers court historian

[Basil Fawlty]

I posted this at the old Phora because of the great signifcance of this exchange. Revisionist Brian Renk discusses the figures for deaths in Auschwitz with distinguished court historian Christopher Browning. Browning is ineluctably hoisted on his own petard. Renk establishes that court historians of the holocaust unwittingly depend on the old Soviet figures despite the consensus amongst the very same historians that those figures cannot be used, as Browing himself confirms. Browning realises the implications of this but its too late, he's already conceded the point. Brilliant!





Holocaust expert cannot explain "convergence of falsehood"

by B. Renk

An e-mail written to Christopher Browning on February 27, 1999:
Quote:

Dear Dr. Browning, I have studied the evidence of the homicidal gas chambers
at Auschwitz, Poland for many years. Perhaps the subject is not specifically
your field of expertise, but I would very much appreciate your helpfulness
in clarifying the following: At the Nuremberg Tribunal, the Report of the
Soviet War Crimes Commission of May 6, 1945 (USSR-008) put forth the
assertion that approximately 10,000 people were killed at Auschwitz on a
daily basis, 279,000 a month, four million total.
The often-referred-to testimonies of Rudolf Höss, Filip Müller, Dr. Myklos
Nyisli, the alleged report of SS-officer Franke-Gricksch, and other sources
corroborate these Soviet figures. In 1989, Dr. Yehuda Bauer reported to the
Jerusalem Post that more like one million people died at Auschwitz, and I
understand the historical community does not contest Dr. Bauer's official
revision.
My question is, if it is understood that the Soviets deliberately inflated
the Auschwitz death toll, what amount of credibility should we ascribe to
the testimonies which corroborate the discredited Soviet reports which
impossibly reported 10,000 daily murders/deaths at Auschwitz? Jean-Claude
Pressac has extensively written of the Auschwitz crematoria capacities as
having been substantially lower, and more in accord with the revised death
toll figures. Also, is the historical community aware that two of the Soviet
Commissions' members (Burdenko and Nikolai) were also members of the Special
State Commision which submitted the fabricated reports on German guilt for
the Katyn massacres (USSR-054)?
In sum, where does the truth lie with regard to Auschwitz concentration
camp? What reports or trial testimonies should one consult to find
corroboration for the death toll as it is understood today? Pressac has
written that the testimony of Nyisli must be divided by four to arrive at a
true figure, for example.
Forgive me, but I would tend to think that testimonies which corroborate the
discredited exaggerations of post-war Soviet intelligence do not serve well
as testimonies to "what really happened and why" at Auschwitz. I understand
that the history of Auschwitz concentration camp must be very delicately
revised for obvious reasons. Nevertheless, shouldn't future references to
the subject note the implausibility of witness claims I've mentioned? If so,
how do we interpret the testimony of Rudolf Höss, for example? Can we
continue to regard the May, 1943 report of Franke-Gricksch as a veracious
account, despite the fact that it mentions 10,000 cremations a day and
500,000 victims at Auschwitz within two months of the Birkenau crematoria
becoming functional?
I do not question [herein] the fact that millions of Jews were murdered in
the Holocaust. I do believe, however, that the historical community must
find a way to come to terms with the testimonies to falsehood which have
been presented as representative of truth in the historical texts to date.
Does it suffice to say "Oh yes, such and such gave a very accurate account
of what really happened, we need only divide his or her exaggerated figures
by four or five to arrive at a truer figure"? Is there a single witness
testimony or deposition which corroborates the idea that one million people,
mostly Jews, were murdered or died over the five year period of the Nazi
concentration camp, or that the Auschwitz-Birkenau crematoria reduced about
two thousand people a day to ashes in peak periods? I only know of the
higher, discredited figures having been put forth. I look forward to your
reply.

Best Regards, Brian Renk



Dr. Browning responded to this letter on April 6, 1999 with the following:
Quote:

Dear Mr. Renk,

The current figure for deaths at Auschwitz was already reached by Raul
Hilberg in his 1961 book by working from the documentary (not eyewitness)
base of the number of Jews transported to Auschwitz and a reasonable
estimate of the number of survivors. No serious historian (from Reitlinger
in the 1950's and Hilberg in the 1960's to the present) has even accepted
the Soviet figure of 4 million, which was based on the erroneous method of
estimating maximum capacity for burning bodies and then falsely assuming
that that maximum capacity was in reality realized every single day that the
gas chamber/crematorium complexes were in existence.
Given the Soviet understanding of history as functional rather than
truthful, once given, the estimate was never corrected or revised.
Historians like Hilberg, and the newer estimates, are not based on the
eyewitness estimates, because though such witnesses could accurately report
that part of the procedure of killing they actually witnessed, they were not
in a position to make accurate calculations concerning the overall and
cumulative killing operations. The search for the single witness or single
document that proves or disproves all is framing the research question
wrongly. It is out of a series of documents, i.e. that different deportation
lists, and a reasonable estimate for the countries (especially Poland) for
which we do not have accurate lists that the process must start.

Christopher Browning



I submitted a response to Browning's letter on April 17, 1999:
Quote:

Dear Dr. Browning,

Thank you for your letter of 6 April (Re: Nuremberg document USSR-008) in
response to my letter of 27 February.
In your letter, you explained that "no serious historian (from Rietlinger in
the 1950's and Hilberg in the 1960's to the present has even accepted the
Soviet figure of 4 million [Auschwitz victims]". Concerning eyewitness
acounts, you wrote: "Historians like Hilberg, and the newer estimates, are
not based on the eyewitness estimates, because though such witnesses could
accurately report that part of the procedure of killing they actually
witnessed, they were not in a position to make accurate calculations
concerning the overall and cumulative killing operations".

I agree that the Holocaust historians have based their estimates for the
number of victims on empirical data such as train deportation lists and,
more recently, the declassified documents of the Auschwitz Zentralbauleitung
in Moscow [note- i.e. coke consumption and cremation theory]. I would also
agree that "the search for the single witness or single document that proves
or disproves all is framing the research question wrongly" and that
conclusions have been drawn from a confluence of data. I do not question the
validity of the historical methodology in the absence of direct proof, and
would not expect you or a colleague to refer to a single document or
testimony to "prove or disprove all".
In the Report of the Soviet War Crimes Commission of 6 May, 1945, the
following is written:

"The Germans killed and burned between 10,000 and 12,000 human beings daily
[at Auschwitz-Birkenau]". The Soviet report refers to the testimonies of
witnesses Dragon and Tauber ("who worked in a special commando servicing the
gas chambers") as ratification for the estimated number of daily victims,
based on "theoretical" crematory throughput.
Of Tauber's testimony, Jean-Claude Pressac wrote in his 1989 study (p. 494):
"Here we find the famous multiplication factor of four, of which Dr. Myklos
Nyisli made such abundant and lamentable use in his book that his
credibility was long contested...we do arrive at the [standard] figure of
four million victims in all. This type of imposed falsehood has to be
excused, I would stress, because of the political climate of the period
1945-1950".
Pressac is correct to stress the minimum fourfold exaggerations of Tauber,
Nyisli, and Dragon (p. 171). As members of the Sondercommando, these direct
witnesses would certainly have been "in a position to make accurate [or
"ballpark"] calculations concerning the overall and cumulative killing
operations".
Filip Müller, whose book was published in 1979, also referred to "the
incineration of up to 10,000 corpses in 24 hours" in the crematoria (p. 97),
and SS-officer Franke-Gricksch is alleged to have written in a report for
Himmler in May, 1943:

"Current capacity of the "resettlement action" ovens: 10,000 in 24 hours"
(Pressac, p. 239).

My question remains: what credibility can we ascribe to these testimonies
which can only have served to "validate" Soviet post-war falsehoods as to
crematory capacities and actual numbers of victims? What reports or
testimonies should one consult to find corroboration for the death toll as
it is understood today?
The aforementioned "imposed falsehood" (Pressac) cannot be excused as
resulting from the post-war political climate, because Müller's account was
published in 1979 and Franke-Gricksch's account dates from 1943. There
appears to be a convergence of evidence to Soviet falsehood and no
testimonies or contemporaneous documents I would consider as representative
of a death toll of one million, excluding the revised confession of Rudolf
Höss, which was not based on documentary sources. This would encompass the
bodies of evidence I have mentioned.
Should it not be the subject of a future colloquy to address this element of
falsehood within such texts? British historian Gerald Fleming, in assessing
the Franke-Gricksch text, wrote:

"The account of the SS officer and the former concentration camp prisoner
[Mueller] concur on one fact: that the cremation capacity of the camp
reached up to 10,000 corpses per twenty four hours" (from "Hitler and the
Final Solution" [1984] p. 145). It is the citation of such figures as valid
which needs redress. Pressac alluded to a "famous multiplier" (pp. 171, 483,
494) which has never been discussed in historical accounts to my knowledge.
If the Holocaust historians have always disregarded the Soviet claim of four
million, why have the testimonies cited above been regarded as accurate
representations of the number of victims?
The Soviets broke the four million figure down to a monthly rate of 279,000
average, and a daily rate of 10,000-12,000.

Brian Renk



Professor Browning tried to answer this letter with a very interesting
response on April 20:
Quote:

Dear Brian Renk,

I think the 10,000 per day figure testified to by Mueller and others was the
maximum reached during the Hungarian deportations, with the use of open pit
burning as well as crematoria. The Soviet report then took this figure and
treated it as a daily average over the whole period of the camp gassings,
when this figure was a maximum reached only on occassion at the height of
the Hungarian deportations. Thus an eyewiteness report that claims that
10,000 Jews were killed at Auschwitz in one day is not a confirmation of the
Soviet figure of 4 million.

Chris Browning



Very appreciative of Professor Browning's willingness to address this
matter, I wrote again on April 23, requesting a response to the specific
arguments I had made:
Quote:

Dear Dr. Browning,

Thank you very much for your letters of April 6 and April 20.

In your letter of April 20, 1999, you wrote:

"I think the 10,000 per day figure testified to by Müller and others was the
maximum reached during the Hungarian deportations, with the use of open-pit
burning as well as cremations. The Soviet report then took this figure and
treated it as a daily average over the whole period of the camp gassings,
when this figure was a maximum reached only on occasion at the height of the
Hungarian deportations".

The Soviet report of 1945 specifically refers to "the total capacity of all
five crematoria" as "279,000 bodies per month. Since the Germans also burned
great numbers of bodies on pyres, the capacity of the installations for the
extermination of human beings in Auschwitz must be considered to be much
higher in fact than this figure would suggest".
At the conclusion of the report, the capacity of the ovens themselves as
10,000 per day is augmented by a given monthly capacity for each cremation
facility and in the independent reference to the open-air cremations as
having occurred prior to the Birkenau crematoria constructs of 1943, when
the combined death toll "far exceeded the capacity of the crematory ovens"
[of the main camp, which was 340 per day]. The Soviets mention shut downs
and repairs to the Birkenau crematoria in connexion with the open-air
incinerations at later dates.

The exaggerated figures compiled by the Soviet commission are not, as you
suggested, in themselves a problem for the historian-- they are regarded as
false. The problem lies in the corroborative witness testimony.
The Soviet commission's "interrogation" of Genrich (Henryk) Tauber elicited
the following statement: "All the crematoria incinerated 10-12,000 bodies
per day". Pressac correctly states that Tauber's figures are "connected with
the [Soviet] propaganda of the immediate post-war period" (1989, p.494).
The witness S. Dragon was also "following the tendency to exaggerate which
seems to have been the general rule at the time of the liberation and which
is what gave rise to the figure of four million victims for the K.L.
Auschwitz, a figure now considered to be pure propaganda. It should be
divided by four to get close to reality [p.171]".
Myklos Nyisli also expressly referred to the crematorium capacity in itself:
"In all up to 10,000 men could be brought from the gas chambers into the
crematory ovens every day".

Filip Müller wrote in 1979:
"The increase in the number of ovens by nearly eight times in comparison to
those of the Auschwitz [main camp] crematorium...enabled the incineration of
up to 10,000 corpses in 24 hours".
Alfred Franke-Gricksch is alleged to have "reported" in May, 1943 (when only
Kremas II and IV were operative): "Current capacity of the "resettlement
action" ovens: 10,000 in 24 hours".

Your hypothesis, namely that "the 10,000 figure testified by Müller and
others was the maximum reached during the Hungarian deportations, with the
use of open-pit burning as well as crematoria" does not correlate to the
specific reference to crematory oven capacity as 10,000/day in each of the
testimonies cited. Tauber and Dragon were "interrogated" by the Soviet
commission and confirmed the Soviet exaggerations verbatim. Franke-Gricksch
is alleged to have given the figure as "jetzige kapazität" (current
capacity) when two Birkenau crematoria were not even completed and the main
camp facility retired (May 1943). Mueller's statement was published in 1979,
and was reiterated in the film "Shoah", where he says that up to 3,000
people were gassed and cremated in 3-4 hours, and that this was repeated
several times in a single day.
In your letter of April 20, you wrote that "an eyewitness report that claims
that 10,000 Jews were killed at Auschwitz in one day is not a confirmation
of the Soviet figure of 4 million". The reports mentioned directly refer to
unrealistic crematory capacities in themselves and, in this regard,
represent a convergence of evidence to a deliberate falsehood.
The minimum fourfold exaggeration of overall deaths could not have existed
without a correspondingly exaggerated average daily figure. I would welcome
evidence to the contrary.

Brian Renk



Browning seems to have been reluctant to respond to this last letter, in
which I clarified what it was that I wished for him to address. After having
awaited his response for one month, I wrote again, attaching the letter of
April 23 to which he had not responded:
Quote:

Dear Dr. Browning,
I have not yet received your response to my letter of 23 April (attached).
Do you disagree with Jean-Claude Pressac's analyses of the testimonies cited
as corroboration of the Soviet exaggerations as your previous letter
suggests? The US Army air photos of 1944 do not show evidence of thousands
of bodies being cremated in open-air incinerations on any of the known dates
and Pressac states (p. 239) that the combined crematoria capacity was about
3,000 per day max.
I think the 10,000 figure should be regarded as an exaggeration regardless
of circumstance. Once again, is Pressac wrong or not? If so, why?

Brian Renk



Browning was, evidently, not prepared to carry this correspondence any
further. On May 18, 1999 he wrote what would be his final e-mail in this
exchange:
Quote:

Dear Mr. Renk,

The tone of our correspondence seems to have changed from exchange to
interrogation, in which you feel entitled to demand answers at your
convenience to an unending series of questions. Now it is my turn to pose
some questions. Who are you? What is your agenda?

Christopher Browning



I did not respond to Browning's final letter. I had respectfully asked very
specific questions, and he was clearly not prepared to answer them. I don't
think my "agenda" is relevant. I was asking a question about the
significance of a specifically false reference in the witness testimony.
It's a very interesting exchange. I asked simple questions and received
simple answers. However, when it was unequivocally spelled out that Dr.
Browning's answers failed to address the subject I was specifically
interested in, he did not wish to continue the correspondence. Typical.

source: http://revforum.yourforum.org/viewtopic.php?t=611&highlight=renk+browning

[cerberus]

The soviets definitely KNEW that they were perverting history.
Intersting quote from the "Revisionist Forum", the perverting of history.
I find it strange that the revisionist don't realise what they are doing but then denial is everything when you are in denial.
Pressac did split with Faurisson when he became aware that the latter was deliberately playing around with the facts , very similar to David Irving.

[Sulla the Dictator]

Choose your own Adventure method of history. 10 different Holocaust deniers can have 10 different theories.

So is Herr Renk's the story you're sticking with, O'Reilly?

[cerberus]

And this in isolation proves what ?

[Sulla the Dictator]

Well Basil? Is this the story you're sticking with or what?

[Fade the Butcher]

My question is, if it is understood that the Soviets deliberately inflated
the Auschwitz death toll, what amount of credibility should we ascribe to
the testimonies which corroborate the discredited Soviet reports which
impossibly reported 10,000 daily murders/deaths at Auschwitz?

That is a pretty good question.

[Basil Fawlty]

Choose your own Adventure method of history. 10 different Holocaust deniers can have 10 different theories.

So is Herr Renk's the story you're sticking with, O'Reilly?Do you have an answer to the problem that even Browning cannot resolve over the accounting method?

[Sulla the Dictator]

Do you have an answer to the problem that even Browning cannot resolve over the accounting method?

So the answer is no then, right? Renk's theories of the Holocaust are not shared by you?

[Basil Fawlty]

So the answer is no then, right? Renk's theories of the Holocaust are not shared by you?Stop trying to pervert the discussion and deal with the issues raised by Renk. Browning could not answer him and neither can you, thus this nonsense.

I'll repeat the question Fade singled out:

My question is, if it is understood that the Soviets deliberately inflated
the Auschwitz death toll, what amount of credibility should we ascribe to
the testimonies which corroborate the discredited Soviet reports which
impossibly reported 10,000 daily murders/deaths at Auschwitz?

[Sulla the Dictator]

Stop trying to pervert the discussion and deal with the issues raised by Renk. Browning could not answer him and neither can you, thus this nonsense.


This is pretty weird. You call this fellow a "Revisionist", and name the person he is harassing a "Court Historian". Yet you can't simply say "Yes or No" regarding his theories on the Holocaust.

What gives?

[Basil Fawlty]

This is pretty weird. You call this fellow a "Revisionist", and name the person he is harassing a "Court Historian". Yet you can't simply say "Yes or No" regarding his theories on the Holocaust.

What gives?What gives is that your question is an absurd and pathetic attempt to evade the question:

My question is, if it is understood that the Soviets deliberately inflated
the Auschwitz death toll, what amount of credibility should we ascribe to
the testimonies which corroborate the discredited Soviet reports which
impossibly reported 10,000 daily murders/deaths at Auschwitz?

Address yourself to the substantive issue rather than nebulosities like people's "theories about the holocaust."

Renk rejects the gas chamber stories as poppycock, so do I. Now, answer the question.

[Fade the Butcher]

Sulla,

Answer the question.

My question is, if it is understood that the Soviets deliberately inflated
the Auschwitz death toll, what amount of credibility should we ascribe to
the testimonies which corroborate the discredited Soviet reports which
impossibly reported 10,000 daily murders/deaths at Auschwitz?

[cerberus]

Has this brief exchange actually advanced the revsionist case.
Its really not up to much and if its such a major event how come its been ignored ?
Much ado about bugger all.

[Sulla the Dictator]

Renk rejects the gas chamber stories as poppycock, so do I. Now, answer the question.

Well then, why not just say you agree with Renk's theories? Why single out ONE thing you agree with?

You see, my original question was this:

Choose your own Adventure method of history. 10 different Holocaust deniers can have 10 different theories.

So is Herr Renk's the story you're sticking with, O'Reilly?

No one's 'changing the subject', thats the question I entered the thread with and one I have not had answered yet.

I can say that I agree with Mr. Browning in terms of concrete historical facts. I may or may not disagree with interpretations, such as motives or evolution of policy.

BUT we do agree on virtually every factual issue. We agree on the death toll, the locations, the methods, and the actors.

Compare that legitimate form of history to the cafeteria history of O'Reilly here. He'll take Renk's theory on gas chambers, Irving's theory on high level operations, Zundel's theory of where the missing Jews are, and Cole's theory on furnaces.

Zundel believes in Nazi UFOs? So what? All O'Reilly subscribes to is his theory on where the missing Jews are. Irving says that there were mobile gas vans? Who cares? O'Reilly only accepts Irving's theory on high level Nazi methodology.

So you don't have an actual historical theory. You have O'Reilly's Theory, which only takes an internet subscription and a tolerance for flash ads promoting Prussian Blue CDs. And who knows what O'Reilly's theory actually is? No historian represents it, you need a chart with corresponding holocaust deniers to individual theories in order to map out the absurdity.

[Basil Fawlty]

Well then, why not just say you agree with Renk's theories? Why single out ONE thing you agree with?No one is discussing theories, they are discussing the figures of the Soviet report and how all the witnesses converge on it.

Now answer the question:
My question is, if it is understood that the Soviets deliberately inflated
the Auschwitz death toll, what amount of credibility should we ascribe to
the testimonies which corroborate the discredited Soviet reports which
impossibly reported 10,000 daily murders/deaths at Auschwitz?

[Sulla the Dictator]

Sulla,

Answer the question.

LOL Case in point. I don't recognize the premise of the question in the first place. These aren't responses from me or questions to me.

Is Renk's theory the one YOU'RE sticking with, Fade?

[Sulla the Dictator]

Now answer the question:


Sulla,

Answer the question.


LMAO No. There is no dialogue here, its interrogation. I'll be happy to engage in a give or take, but I'm not your Holocaust Museum Guide and you're not daring investigators on a tour.

[Basil Fawlty]

LOL Case in point. I don't recognize the premise of the question in the first place.Of course not, you can't afford to.

[Sulla the Dictator]

Answer my question about the furnace capability. Answer my question about the gas chamber. You have a question about my statement? Don't change the subject. Answer my question on Zyklon B....


LOL Pretty flimsy theories when you can't discuss them and any effort to explore the things you people claim is replied to with "Don't change the subject".

[Sulla the Dictator]

Of course not, you can't afford to.

Now I'll make you a deal, and we'll use this as a learning experience for you. I'll reply to your question after you reply to mine.

Do you know why we're doing it in that order? Because I asked you first.

[Basil Fawlty]

Now I'll make you a deal, and we'll use this as a learning experience for you. I'll reply to your question after you reply to mine.

Do you know why we're doing it in that order? Because I asked you first.No, because you have to avoid Renk's elenchus at all costs. Squirm away.

Anyway, shouldn't you be off worshipping at some holohoax memorial today?

[Sinclair]

Thing is, Renk isn't saying anything except "Soviet death numbers were overstated", is he? Millions of Jews and millions of non-Jews were still killed, and killed intentionally. If Renk is right, the only way the conventional history has been off is in terms of numbers, not in what was done or how.

[Sulla the Dictator]

No, because you have to avoid Renk's elenchus at all costs. Squirm away.

Anyway, shouldn't you be off worshipping at some holohoax memorial today?

This is interesting, because I offered to answer his question with one simple requirement. All O'Reilly had to do in order to get an answer to his question was to say whether or not he agreed with Renk's theory of the Holocaust.

He's so reluctant to say yes or no so as to FLEE his own thread. And in fact, the reason I make the demand that he answer before I do is now crystal clear to anyone.

They don't answer questions. They don't want to be tied to a theory of history because then they'll have to deal with the weakness of their case. Its tedious to be asked questions by someone who doesn't want to answer them. Its tedious to hear people assault a historical fact while never sharing their alternative theory.

He wants to talk about Soviet figures? We could talk about them very simply. All he has to do is say that he doesn't agree with Renk's theory of the Holocaust, or he does agree with Renk's theory of the Holocaust.

After all, he posted Renk. Why did he do it if he disagrees? And if he doesn't disagree with Renk, whats the problem?

[Sulla the Dictator]

Now I'll make you a deal, and we'll use this as a learning experience for you. I'll reply to your question after you reply to mine.

Do you know why we're doing it in that order? Because I asked you first.

Sounds reasonable to me.

[Basil Fawlty]

This is interesting, because I offered to answer his question with one simple requirement. All O'Reilly had to do in order to get an answer to his question was to say whether or not he agreed with Renk's theory of the Holocaust.Once again, I don't know what you mean by his theory.

Renk regards the gas chamber stories as false, so do I.

Now answer the question:
My question is, if it is understood that the Soviets deliberately inflated
the Auschwitz death toll, what amount of credibility should we ascribe to
the testimonies which corroborate the discredited Soviet reports which
impossibly reported 10,000 daily murders/deaths at Auschwitz?

[Sulla the Dictator]

Once again, I don't know what you mean by his theory.

Renk regards the gas chamber stories as false, so do I.


What? You don't know what his theory regarding the Holocaust is?

Do you agree with, or disagree with, the interpretation of the Holocaust as stated by Renk in his writings?



Now answer the question:

I'll be glad to. Right after you answer.

[Sulla the Dictator]

I mean, you READ what you pasted, didn't you?

[Basil Fawlty]

What? You don't know what his theory regarding the Holocaust is?

Do you agree with, or disagree with, the interpretation of the Holocaust as stated by Renk in his writings?Your slipping and sliding all over the place. The exchange with Browning concerns factual claims, i.e. empirical matters. I don't see any theory there. Perhaps Renk has written more theoretical pieces elsewhere and perhaps that is what you have in mind? If you see any theoretical statements in his correspondence with Browning (the topic of this thread) do point it out because I cannot see it.

If not, answer the question:
My question is, if it is understood that the Soviets deliberately inflated
the Auschwitz death toll, what amount of credibility should we ascribe to
the testimonies which corroborate the discredited Soviet reports which
impossibly reported 10,000 daily murders/deaths at Auschwitz?

[A. Radek]

This is interesting, because I offered to answer his question with one simple requirement. All O'Reilly had to do in order to get an answer to his question was to say whether or not he agreed with Renk's theory of the Holocaust.

He's so reluctant to say yes or no so as to FLEE his own thread. And in fact, the reason I make the demand that he answer before I do is now crystal clear to anyone.

They don't answer questions. They don't want to be tied to a theory of history because then they'll have to deal with the weakness of their case. Its tedious to be asked questions by someone who doesn't want to answer them. Its tedious to hear people assault a historical fact while never sharing their alternative theory.

He wants to talk about Soviet figures? We could talk about them very simply. All he has to do is say that he doesn't agree with Renk's theory of the Holocaust, or he does agree with Renk's theory of the Holocaust.

After all, he posted Renk. Why did he do it if he disagrees? And if he doesn't disagree with Renk, whats the problem?


Good points. Most deniers merely hope innuendo, conflation, and obfuscation will be acceptable. After all, continually preaching to a choir in an echo chamber weakens any real ability to argue a point.

[Basil Fawlty]

Good points. Most deniers, merely hope innuendo, conflation, and obfuscation will be acceptable.Perhaps then you can answer the question that defeated Browning and from which Sulla flees:
My question is, if it is understood that the Soviets deliberately inflated
the Auschwitz death toll, what amount of credibility should we ascribe to
the testimonies which corroborate the discredited Soviet reports which
impossibly reported 10,000 daily murders/deaths at Auschwitz?

[Sulla the Dictator]

Your slipping and sliding all over the place. The exchange with Browning concerns factual claims, i.e. empirical matters. I don't see any theory there. Perhaps Renk has written more theoretical pieces elsewhere and perhaps that is what you have in mind? If you see any theoretical statements in his correspondence with Browning (the topic of this thread) do point it out because I cannot see it.


Actually what I see is Renk harassing Browning with questions, which is very familiar. I also see you scramble away from being tied to an actual position. There is an accepted, widely known, view of the period in question. Contrary opinions without the exhaustive research (Its simply a fact, even to Holocaust Deniers, that you do not have the resources that Holocaust historians do) is speculation, ie, theory. Hence all the questions. So I think that when someone says "his theory of the Holocaust", you're the only one who is confused.

You know exactly what I mean. Do you agree with Renk's version of the events surrounding the Holocaust or don't you?


If not, answer the question:

Sure, I'll answer the question. Right after you answer mine.

[A. Radek]

Answer Sulla's points.

[Sulla the Dictator]

Good points. Most deniers merely hope innuendo, conflation, and obfuscation will be acceptable. After all, continually preaching to a choir in an echo chamber weakens any real ability to argue a point.

LOL Yes. I've learned long ago that the only productive debate with them is where the Holocaust Denier has to take a position. They prefer not to be weighed down by things like facts or evidence.

[Sulla the Dictator]

I posted this at the old Phora because of the great signifcance of this exchange. Revisionist Brian Renk discusses the figures for deaths in Auschwitz with distinguished court historian Christopher Browning. Browning is ineluctably hoisted on his own petard. Renk establishes that court historians of the holocaust unwittingly depend on the old Soviet figures despite the consensus amongst the very same historians that those figures cannot be used, as Browing himself confirms. Browning realises the implications of this but its too late, he's already conceded the point. Brilliant!





Holocaust expert cannot explain "convergence of falsehood"

by B. Renk

An e-mail written to Christopher Browning on February 27, 1999:
Quote:

Dear Dr. Browning, I have studied the evidence of the homicidal gas chambers
at Auschwitz, Poland for many years. Perhaps the subject is not specifically
your field of expertise, but I would very much appreciate your helpfulness
in clarifying the following: At the Nuremberg Tribunal, the Report of the
Soviet War Crimes Commission of May 6, 1945 (USSR-008) put forth the
assertion that approximately 10,000 people were killed at Auschwitz on a
daily basis, 279,000 a month, four million total.
The often-referred-to testimonies of Rudolf Höss, Filip Müller, Dr. Myklos
Nyisli, the alleged report of SS-officer Franke-Gricksch, and other sources
corroborate these Soviet figures. In 1989, Dr. Yehuda Bauer reported to the
Jerusalem Post that more like one million people died at Auschwitz, and I
understand the historical community does not contest Dr. Bauer's official
revision.
My question is, if it is understood that the Soviets deliberately inflated
the Auschwitz death toll, what amount of credibility should we ascribe to
the testimonies which corroborate the discredited Soviet reports which
impossibly reported 10,000 daily murders/deaths at Auschwitz? Jean-Claude
Pressac has extensively written of the Auschwitz crematoria capacities as
having been substantially lower, and more in accord with the revised death
toll figures. Also, is the historical community aware that two of the Soviet
Commissions' members (Burdenko and Nikolai) were also members of the Special
State Commision which submitted the fabricated reports on German guilt for
the Katyn massacres (USSR-054)?
In sum, where does the truth lie with regard to Auschwitz concentration
camp? What reports or trial testimonies should one consult to find
corroboration for the death toll as it is understood today? Pressac has
written that the testimony of Nyisli must be divided by four to arrive at a
true figure, for example.
Forgive me, but I would tend to think that testimonies which corroborate the
discredited exaggerations of post-war Soviet intelligence do not serve well
as testimonies to "what really happened and why" at Auschwitz. I understand
that the history of Auschwitz concentration camp must be very delicately
revised for obvious reasons. Nevertheless, shouldn't future references to
the subject note the implausibility of witness claims I've mentioned? If so,
how do we interpret the testimony of Rudolf Höss, for example? Can we
continue to regard the May, 1943 report of Franke-Gricksch as a veracious
account, despite the fact that it mentions 10,000 cremations a day and
500,000 victims at Auschwitz within two months of the Birkenau crematoria
becoming functional?
I do not question [herein] the fact that millions of Jews were murdered in
the Holocaust. I do believe, however, that the historical community must
find a way to come to terms with the testimonies to falsehood which have
been presented as representative of truth in the historical texts to date.
Does it suffice to say "Oh yes, such and such gave a very accurate account
of what really happened, we need only divide his or her exaggerated figures
by four or five to arrive at a truer figure"? Is there a single witness
testimony or deposition which corroborates the idea that one million people,
mostly Jews, were murdered or died over the five year period of the Nazi
concentration camp, or that the Auschwitz-Birkenau crematoria reduced about
two thousand people a day to ashes in peak periods? I only know of the
higher, discredited figures having been put forth. I look forward to your
reply.

Best Regards, Brian Renk



Dr. Browning responded to this letter on April 6, 1999 with the following:
Quote:

Dear Mr. Renk,

The current figure for deaths at Auschwitz was already reached by Raul
Hilberg in his 1961 book by working from the documentary (not eyewitness)
base of the number of Jews transported to Auschwitz and a reasonable
estimate of the number of survivors. No serious historian (from Reitlinger
in the 1950's and Hilberg in the 1960's to the present) has even accepted
the Soviet figure of 4 million, which was based on the erroneous method of
estimating maximum capacity for burning bodies and then falsely assuming
that that maximum capacity was in reality realized every single day that the
gas chamber/crematorium complexes were in existence.
Given the Soviet understanding of history as functional rather than
truthful, once given, the estimate was never corrected or revised.
Historians like Hilberg, and the newer estimates, are not based on the
eyewitness estimates, because though such witnesses could accurately report
that part of the procedure of killing they actually witnessed, they were not
in a position to make accurate calculations concerning the overall and
cumulative killing operations. The search for the single witness or single
document that proves or disproves all is framing the research question
wrongly. It is out of a series of documents, i.e. that different deportation
lists, and a reasonable estimate for the countries (especially Poland) for
which we do not have accurate lists that the process must start.

Christopher Browning



I submitted a response to Browning's letter on April 17, 1999:
Quote:

Dear Dr. Browning,

Thank you for your letter of 6 April (Re: Nuremberg document USSR-008) in
response to my letter of 27 February.
In your letter, you explained that "no serious historian (from Rietlinger in
the 1950's and Hilberg in the 1960's to the present has even accepted the
Soviet figure of 4 million [Auschwitz victims]". Concerning eyewitness
acounts, you wrote: "Historians like Hilberg, and the newer estimates, are
not based on the eyewitness estimates, because though such witnesses could
accurately report that part of the procedure of killing they actually
witnessed, they were not in a position to make accurate calculations
concerning the overall and cumulative killing operations".

I agree that the Holocaust historians have based their estimates for the
number of victims on empirical data such as train deportation lists and,
more recently, the declassified documents of the Auschwitz Zentralbauleitung
in Moscow [note- i.e. coke consumption and cremation theory]. I would also
agree that "the search for the single witness or single document that proves
or disproves all is framing the research question wrongly" and that
conclusions have been drawn from a confluence of data. I do not question the
validity of the historical methodology in the absence of direct proof, and
would not expect you or a colleague to refer to a single document or
testimony to "prove or disprove all".
In the Report of the Soviet War Crimes Commission of 6 May, 1945, the
following is written:

"The Germans killed and burned between 10,000 and 12,000 human beings daily
[at Auschwitz-Birkenau]". The Soviet report refers to the testimonies of
witnesses Dragon and Tauber ("who worked in a special commando servicing the
gas chambers") as ratification for the estimated number of daily victims,
based on "theoretical" crematory throughput.
Of Tauber's testimony, Jean-Claude Pressac wrote in his 1989 study (p. 494):
"Here we find the famous multiplication factor of four, of which Dr. Myklos
Nyisli made such abundant and lamentable use in his book that his
credibility was long contested...we do arrive at the [standard] figure of
four million victims in all. This type of imposed falsehood has to be
excused, I would stress, because of the political climate of the period
1945-1950".
Pressac is correct to stress the minimum fourfold exaggerations of Tauber,
Nyisli, and Dragon (p. 171). As members of the Sondercommando, these direct
witnesses would certainly have been "in a position to make accurate [or
"ballpark"] calculations concerning the overall and cumulative killing
operations".
Filip Müller, whose book was published in 1979, also referred to "the
incineration of up to 10,000 corpses in 24 hours" in the crematoria (p. 97),
and SS-officer Franke-Gricksch is alleged to have written in a report for
Himmler in May, 1943:

"Current capacity of the "resettlement action" ovens: 10,000 in 24 hours"
(Pressac, p. 239).

My question remains: what credibility can we ascribe to these testimonies
which can only have served to "validate" Soviet post-war falsehoods as to
crematory capacities and actual numbers of victims? What reports or
testimonies should one consult to find corroboration for the death toll as
it is understood today?
The aforementioned "imposed falsehood" (Pressac) cannot be excused as
resulting from the post-war political climate, because Müller's account was
published in 1979 and Franke-Gricksch's account dates from 1943. There
appears to be a convergence of evidence to Soviet falsehood and no
testimonies or contemporaneous documents I would consider as representative
of a death toll of one million, excluding the revised confession of Rudolf
Höss, which was not based on documentary sources. This would encompass the
bodies of evidence I have mentioned.
Should it not be the subject of a future colloquy to address this element of
falsehood within such texts? British historian Gerald Fleming, in assessing
the Franke-Gricksch text, wrote:

"The account of the SS officer and the former concentration camp prisoner
[Mueller] concur on one fact: that the cremation capacity of the camp
reached up to 10,000 corpses per twenty four hours" (from "Hitler and the
Final Solution" [1984] p. 145). It is the citation of such figures as valid
which needs redress. Pressac alluded to a "famous multiplier" (pp. 171, 483,
494) which has never been discussed in historical accounts to my knowledge.
If the Holocaust historians have always disregarded the Soviet claim of four
million, why have the testimonies cited above been regarded as accurate
representations of the number of victims?
The Soviets broke the four million figure down to a monthly rate of 279,000
average, and a daily rate of 10,000-12,000.

Brian Renk



Professor Browning tried to answer this letter with a very interesting
response on April 20:
Quote:

Dear Brian Renk,

I think the 10,000 per day figure testified to by Mueller and others was the
maximum reached during the Hungarian deportations, with the use of open pit
burning as well as crematoria. The Soviet report then took this figure and
treated it as a daily average over the whole period of the camp gassings,
when this figure was a maximum reached only on occassion at the height of
the Hungarian deportations. Thus an eyewiteness report that claims that
10,000 Jews were killed at Auschwitz in one day is not a confirmation of the
Soviet figure of 4 million.

Chris Browning



Very appreciative of Professor Browning's willingness to address this
matter, I wrote again on April 23, requesting a response to the specific
arguments I had made:
Quote:

Dear Dr. Browning,

Thank you very much for your letters of April 6 and April 20.

In your letter of April 20, 1999, you wrote:

"I think the 10,000 per day figure testified to by Müller and others was the
maximum reached during the Hungarian deportations, with the use of open-pit
burning as well as cremations. The Soviet report then took this figure and
treated it as a daily average over the whole period of the camp gassings,
when this figure was a maximum reached only on occasion at the height of the
Hungarian deportations".

The Soviet report of 1945 specifically refers to "the total capacity of all
five crematoria" as "279,000 bodies per month. Since the Germans also burned
great numbers of bodies on pyres, the capacity of the installations for the
extermination of human beings in Auschwitz must be considered to be much
higher in fact than this figure would suggest".
At the conclusion of the report, the capacity of the ovens themselves as
10,000 per day is augmented by a given monthly capacity for each cremation
facility and in the independent reference to the open-air cremations as
having occurred prior to the Birkenau crematoria constructs of 1943, when
the combined death toll "far exceeded the capacity of the crematory ovens"
[of the main camp, which was 340 per day]. The Soviets mention shut downs
and repairs to the Birkenau crematoria in connexion with the open-air
incinerations at later dates.

The exaggerated figures compiled by the Soviet commission are not, as you
suggested, in themselves a problem for the historian-- they are regarded as
false. The problem lies in the corroborative witness testimony.
The Soviet commission's "interrogation" of Genrich (Henryk) Tauber elicited
the following statement: "All the crematoria incinerated 10-12,000 bodies
per day". Pressac correctly states that Tauber's figures are "connected with
the [Soviet] propaganda of the immediate post-war period" (1989, p.494).
The witness S. Dragon was also "following the tendency to exaggerate which
seems to have been the general rule at the time of the liberation and which
is what gave rise to the figure of four million victims for the K.L.
Auschwitz, a figure now considered to be pure propaganda. It should be
divided by four to get close to reality [p.171]".
Myklos Nyisli also expressly referred to the crematorium capacity in itself:
"In all up to 10,000 men could be brought from the gas chambers into the
crematory ovens every day".

Filip Müller wrote in 1979:
"The increase in the number of ovens by nearly eight times in comparison to
those of the Auschwitz [main camp] crematorium...enabled the incineration of
up to 10,000 corpses in 24 hours".
Alfred Franke-Gricksch is alleged to have "reported" in May, 1943 (when only
Kremas II and IV were operative): "Current capacity of the "resettlement
action" ovens: 10,000 in 24 hours".

Your hypothesis, namely that "the 10,000 figure testified by Müller and
others was the maximum reached during the Hungarian deportations, with the
use of open-pit burning as well as crematoria" does not correlate to the
specific reference to crematory oven capacity as 10,000/day in each of the
testimonies cited. Tauber and Dragon were "interrogated" by the Soviet
commission and confirmed the Soviet exaggerations verbatim. Franke-Gricksch
is alleged to have given the figure as "jetzige kapazität" (current
capacity) when two Birkenau crematoria were not even completed and the main
camp facility retired (May 1943). Mueller's statement was published in 1979,
and was reiterated in the film "Shoah", where he says that up to 3,000
people were gassed and cremated in 3-4 hours, and that this was repeated
several times in a single day.
In your letter of April 20, you wrote that "an eyewitness report that claims
that 10,000 Jews were killed at Auschwitz in one day is not a confirmation
of the Soviet figure of 4 million". The reports mentioned directly refer to
unrealistic crematory capacities in themselves and, in this regard,
represent a convergence of evidence to a deliberate falsehood.
The minimum fourfold exaggeration of overall deaths could not have existed
without a correspondingly exaggerated average daily figure. I would welcome
evidence to the contrary.

Brian Renk



Browning seems to have been reluctant to respond to this last letter, in
which I clarified what it was that I wished for him to address. After having
awaited his response for one month, I wrote again, attaching the letter of
April 23 to which he had not responded:
Quote:

Dear Dr. Browning,
I have not yet received your response to my letter of 23 April (attached).
Do you disagree with Jean-Claude Pressac's analyses of the testimonies cited
as corroboration of the Soviet exaggerations as your previous letter
suggests? The US Army air photos of 1944 do not show evidence of thousands
of bodies being cremated in open-air incinerations on any of the known dates
and Pressac states (p. 239) that the combined crematoria capacity was about
3,000 per day max.
I think the 10,000 figure should be regarded as an exaggeration regardless
of circumstance. Once again, is Pressac wrong or not? If so, why?

Brian Renk



Browning was, evidently, not prepared to carry this correspondence any
further. On May 18, 1999 he wrote what would be his final e-mail in this
exchange:
Quote:

Dear Mr. Renk,

The tone of our correspondence seems to have changed from exchange to
interrogation, in which you feel entitled to demand answers at your
convenience to an unending series of questions. Now it is my turn to pose
some questions. Who are you? What is your agenda?

Christopher Browning



I did not respond to Browning's final letter. I had respectfully asked very
specific questions, and he was clearly not prepared to answer them. I don't
think my "agenda" is relevant. I was asking a question about the
significance of a specifically false reference in the witness testimony.
It's a very interesting exchange. I asked simple questions and received
simple answers. However, when it was unequivocally spelled out that Dr.
Browning's answers failed to address the subject I was specifically
interested in, he did not wish to continue the correspondence. Typical.

source: http://revforum.yourforum.org/viewtopic.php?t=611&highlight=renk+browning


Do we need to simplify this?

Do you agree with what Renk says above, and believe him to be a legitimate representative of what your views of the Holocaust?

[Basil Fawlty]

Actually what I see is Renk harassing Browning with questions, which is very familiar. I also see you scramble away from being tied to an actual position. There is an accepted, widely known, view of the period in question. Contrary opinions without the exhaustive research (Its simply a fact, even to Holocaust Deniers, that you do not have the resources that Holocaust historians do) is speculation, ie, theory. Hence all the questions. So I think that when someone says "his theory of the Holocaust", you're the only one who is confused.The topic of this thread is an exchange between Brian Renk and Christipher Browing over factual claims about body disposal figures for Auschwitz-Birkenau. There is no theory here because it is an empirical question.
You know exactly what I mean.You don't know what I do or don't know. Do you agree with Renk's version of the events surrounding the Holocaust or don't you? I have already told you a number of times that I share his views about the gassing claims, i.e. they are fraudulent.

Now get on with it and stop this pathetic prevarication.

My question is, if it is understood that the Soviets deliberately inflated
the Auschwitz death toll, what amount of credibility should we ascribe to
the testimonies which corroborate the discredited Soviet reports which
impossibly reported 10,000 daily murders/deaths at Auschwitz?

[Basil Fawlty]

Answer Sulla's points.Take a hike. :222:

[Sulla the Dictator]

The topic of this thread is an exchange between Brian Renk and Christipher Browing over factual claims about body disposal figures for Auschwitz-Birkenau. There is no theory here because it is an empirical question.


Right, and in that exchange you seem to support Renk. But why you don't want to say what your position on his view of the Holocaust is, is beyond me and I assume the gallery as well.

*I* certainly have no problem with saying that I agree with Browning on the FACTUAL issues of the Holocaust.

Why do you have a problem doing the same with Renk?


You don't know what I do or don't know.


I'm sure you're smart enough to know exactly what I mean. It isn't at all vague or confusing.


I have already told you a number of times that I share his views about the gassing claims, i.e. they are fraudulent.


Yes, you said that. But its odd that THATS all you'll say. Thats ONE PART of the Holocaust. Is it your suggestion that thats all Renk is talking about, and therefore you DO agree with his positions on the Holocaust? Is he a one trick pony who only pontificates about gas chambers?

Or are gas chambers the only thing you agree with him on?

I don't know why you're dragging this out. You aren't fooling people into thinking you've answered me, and its only getting bizzare that you AREN'T answering. Are you worried that there's a theory even LESS reputable than Holocaust denial that Renk supports and which you don't want to be tied to? :p

I asked you a simple question. Then I even simplified it.

Do you agree with what Renk says above, and believe him to be a legitimate representative of what your views of the Holocaust

Yes or no. Its EXTREMELY simple.


Now get on with it and stop this pathetic prevarication.

Your question will be dealt with after you stop doing this weird tap dance. I'm actually begining to grow curious about what you find so distasteful in Renk. :D

[A. Radek]

Take a hike. :222:

I certainly understand your not wanting witnesses here ...

Do we need to simplify this?

Do you agree with what Renk says above, and believe him to be a legitimate representative of what your views of the Holocaust?

That's straightforward enough, that particular paste being referred to. I fail to see why it's such a hard question for 'Basil' to answer.

[Basil Fawlty]

Right, and in that exchange you seem to support Renk. But why you don't want to say what your position on his view of the Holocaust is, is beyond me and I assume the gallery as well.You are trying to evade dealing with those figures by trying to changing the subject.

*I* certainly have no problem with saying that I agree with Browning on the FACTUAL issues of the Holocaust.

Why do you have a problem doing the same with Renk?
I'm sure you're smart enough to know exactly what I mean. It isn't at all vague or confusing.
You are trying to evade dealing with those figures by trying to change the subject.


Yes, you said that. But its odd that THATS all you'll say. Thats ONE PART of the Holocaust. Is it your suggestion that thats all Renk is talking about, and therefore you DO agree with his positions on the Holocaust? Is he a one trick pony who only pontificates about gas chambers?

Or are gas chambers the only thing you agree with him on?

I don't know why you're dragging this out. You aren't fooling people into thinking you've answered me, and its only getting bizzare that you AREN'T answering. Are you worried that there's a theory even LESS reputable than Holocaust denial that Renk supports and which you don't want to be tied to? :p

I asked you a simple question. Then I even simplified it.

Do you agree with what Renk says above, and believe him to be a legitimate representative of what your views of the Holocaust

Yes or no. Its EXTREMELY simple. You are trying to evade dealing with those figures by trying to change the subject.


Your question will be dealt with after you stop doing this weird tap dance. I'm actually begining to grow curious about what you find so distasteful in Renk. :DNothing, he is clearly brilliant.

You are trying to evade dealing with those figures by trying to change the subject.

Now answer the question:
My question is, if it is understood that the Soviets deliberately inflated
the Auschwitz death toll, what amount of credibility should we ascribe to
the testimonies which corroborate the discredited Soviet reports which
impossibly reported 10,000 daily murders/deaths at Auschwitz?

[Blaphbee]

(Its simply a fact, even to Holocaust Deniers, that you do not have the resources that Holocaust historians do)
Proof? Links? Evidence? or are these just phantasms?
There is an accepted, widely known, view of the period in question. Contrary opinions without the exhaustive research is speculation, ie, theory.
This is exactly what was questioned, i.e. the underpinnings guiding this widely accepted assumption that these figures are correct. In your choice to utilize them for your argument, you sound rather silly, considering they've been called into account with a question concerning their veracity, a question you keep dodging so as to play your little egogames with Basil. You're playing the same games as Browning, and it's pathetic. Basil has already clarified his position many times in this thread, without needing to resort to the condescending little "yes or no" answer that you so desperately need to hear in order to answer such a simple question as has been put to you, since you've seen fit to take up Browning's position.

If need be, I can go through the thread and gather up Basil's assertions of his position for you.

To the point, these semantic word games you choose to continue playing while blathering on about "holocaust deniers who never take a position", whereas Basil very clearly has in at least three posts, are obscuring the debate. You asked him first, and he has answered you. Why do you persist on insisting that he answer in one manner or another? It's counterproductive, especially to someone who's striving as hard as you to take the moral high ground.

[Sulla the Dictator]

You are trying to evade dealing with those figures by trying to changing the subject.

You are trying to evade dealing with those figures by trying to change the subject.


You are trying to evade dealing with those figures by trying to change the subject.


Nothing, he is clearly brilliant.


But if he's brilliant, why won't you stand by his theory? Answer this question:

Do you agree with what Renk says above, and believe him to be a legitimate representative of your views of the Holocaust


Its very easy. Just say yes or no. Whats the problem?



Now answer the question:

Love to. You know how that question gets answered, you give me an answer to mine. One little word. Thats the advantage of having asked a question first.

[Basil Fawlty]

But if he's brilliant, why won't you stand by his theory? Answer this question:

Do you agree with what Renk says above, and believe him to be a legitimate representative of your views of the Holocaust Renk has produced facts which Browning is in agreement with, that's the common basis of the exchange. Browning however cannot follow through the logical consequences of the question Renk raises about those agreed facts - and neither can you, hence this truly pathetic (even by your standards) squirming about.

You talk about his "theory" and whether or not I agree with it. Here's the deal: summarise that theory in order that I may know what it is I am supposed to be agreeing/disagreeing with because there are no theoretical statements in that exchange that I can see.

Everyone else on this thread seems to be perfectly clear about where I stand, except you, which means that you are either mentally retarded or prevaricating. I know the former is not true, which leaves only the latter.

Now get on with answering the question:
My question is, if it is understood that the Soviets deliberately inflated
the Auschwitz death toll, what amount of credibility should we ascribe to
the testimonies which corroborate the discredited Soviet reports which
impossibly reported 10,000 daily murders/deaths at Auschwitz?

[cerberus]

Go on Reinhold , one word .

[Sulla the Dictator]

[/B]Renk has produced facts which Browning is in agreement with, that's the common basis of the exchange. Browning however cannot follow through the logical consequences of the question Renk raises about those agreed facts - and neither can you, hence this truly pathetic (even by your standards) squirming about.

You talk about his "theory" and whether or not I agree with it. Here's the deal: summarise that theory in order that I may know what it is I am supposed to be agreeing/disagreeing with because there are no theoretical statements in that exchange that I can see.

Everyone else on this thread seems to be perfectly clear about where I stand, except you, which means that you are either mentally retarded or prevaricating. I know the former is not true, which leaves only the latter.


I simplified it for you, this statement does not follow. I said this:

Do you agree with what Renk says above, and believe him to be a legitimate representative of your views on the Holocaust

Yes or no?

Everyone in the thread, including me, is baffled as to why you suggest this question is complex. By your own admission, you haven't answered it, suggesting that I'm in essence asking a 'non question'.

But that isn't at all true. You are taking a rather incredible literalist position on the word 'theory', so I've done you the courtesy of removing it from the question. The question is in fact quite clear. Renk made statements that you pasted. Do you agree with him? Renk is a Holocaust denier, you're a Holocaust denier. You posted his statement. Do Renk's views on the Holocaust represent yours?


Now get on with answering the question:

By your own admission you haven't answered me. And my question is a lot simpler to answer than yours.

[Basil Fawlty]

I simplified it for you, this statement does not follow. I said this:

Do you agree with what Renk says above, and believe him to be a legitimate representative of your views on the Holocaust

Yes or no?Not only do I agree with Renk in that exchange, but so does Browning, who at least had the decency to go silent and terminate the exchange. Browning does not dispute the facts as presented in that exchange, how could he, they are all gleaned from the primary sources.

You insist on keeping up this ludicrous ad hominem attack solely to evade the burden of trying to square those witness figures with the universal rejection of the Soviet report (both court historians and revisionists)on which they all converge. That's the contradiction you cannot afford to acknowledge, let alone deal with.


Everyone in the thread, including me, Only you and your cronies, everyone else is quite clear.

is baffled as to why you suggest this question is complex. By your own admission, you haven't answered it, suggesting that I'm in essence asking a 'non question'.It is a non-question, an attempt at prevarication. I have said on a number of occassions so far that I am in agreement with Renk that gassing stories are unsustainable and fraudulent. You know this anyway from our many exchanges in the past. Why do you insist on further damaging your credibility with this nonsensical tactic?

But that isn't at all true. You are taking a rather incredible literalist position on the word 'theory', so I've done you the courtesy of removing it from the question.You call the distinction between a theoretical issue an an empircal one "rather incredible"? That speaks loads about you, the level you will sink to to evade the substantive matter. The question is in fact quite clear. Renk made statements that you pasted. Do you agree with him? Renk is a Holocaust denier, you're a Holocaust denier. Haven't you just answered your own silly question? :222: (substituting the term 'revisionist' where you have 'denier')?

Do Renk's views on the Holocaust represent yours?I am unfamiliar with all his views on the holohoax so I cant say, however I am familiar with his views about body disposal figures for Auschwitz (as is anyone who has read the exchange) and that is what we are supposed to be talking about here, not the nebulous phenomenon known as "the Holocaust" which even court historians have trouble defining clearly.

We are concerned only with the substance of that exchange which is the topic of this thread. If you want to start another thread on Renk's more theoretical views on holocostology in general, I'm sure I would join in.


Now attend to the question:
My question is, if it is understood that the Soviets deliberately inflatedthe Auschwitz death toll, what amount of credibility should we ascribe to the testimonies which corroborate the discredited Soviet reports which impossibly reported 10,000 daily murders/deaths at Auschwitz?

[cerberus]

Just wish you would say one way or the other.
This is actually quite good.

[Basil Fawlty]

Just wish you would say one way or the other.
This is actually quite good.You should learn to read and, more importantly, comprehend what you read, you 'oul shitestirrer ;)

[cerberus]

Reinhold , hold on til I put down me shovel. (There).
Yes or no, one or the other , either , or.;)

[cerberus]

Reminds me of Cole's holes , that supposed to be great expose of the Auschwitz Gas Chamber. Empty of content and big on bluster.

[Basil Fawlty]

Reminds me of Cole's holes , that supposed to be great expose of the Auschwitz Gas Chamber. Empty of content and big on bluster.Were are these famous holes then?

[cerberus]

It was you who told me to see the Cole show, and what a complete and utter waste of time it was.

[Sulla the Dictator]

Not only do I agree with Renk in that exchange, but so does Browning, who at least had the decency to go silent and terminate the exchange. Browning does not dispute the facts as presented in that exchange, how could he, they are all gleaned from the primary sources.


Now, why did it take you so long to say that? The length of this exchange has been dictated by your unwillingness to stake a position on Renk.

Now for a follow up question.

When will you abandon what you have just admitted are lies, ie, Holocaust denial?

We've made a great deal of progress. After all, you not only agree with Renk, but also with Browning, that you do not question the fact that millions of Jews were murdered in the Holocaust.

Browning actually didn't run from anything, nor have I. We have done a simple experiment here. Read your own paste:

Dear Mr. Renk,

The tone of our correspondence seems to have changed from exchange to
interrogation, in which you feel entitled to demand answers at your
convenience to an unending series of questions. Now it is my turn to pose
some questions. Who are you? What is your agenda?

Christopher Browning

I did not respond to Browning's final letter.

As we know, ladies and gentlemen, Holocaust deniers DO NOT LIKE to answer questions. We've seen that played out here, in miniature between two posters.

Do we all not have a sense of fair play? Is it not fair to RESPOND to questions if you're going to ask them? Why is it that I, or Mr. Browning, or anyone else have to answer a deluge of questions without the courtesy of having our questions answered?

What kind of ideology is so unable to defend itself as to harass others and refuse to stake a position on any issue?

I pointed it out earlier. Its a "Choose your own Adventure" system of belief. I, as a fellow who knows and understands the facts of the Holocaust, am pretty well staked out on this issue. I don't say, "I believe in this camp but not in this one" when its convenient. These guys have no such compulsion. There's no solidity to the faith of Holocaust Denial. Its all smoke and mirrors.

So why is it a titanic, "Atlas Shrugged"-like effort to get O'Reilly to respond to a simple question? Or for Renk to come clean?

Its quite obvious he misrepresented himself at the begining of this exchange.



You insist on keeping up this ludicrous ad hominem attack


Ad hominem attack? We've sure lowered the bar. Asking you your position on the statements YOU posted is now a personal stab? :nono:

C'mon now.


solely to evade the burden of trying to square those witness figures with the universal rejection of the Soviet report (both court historians and revisionists)on which they all converge. That's the contradiction you cannot afford to acknowledge, let alone deal with.


I'm not avoiding it. I'm replying to it now that you've answered me, as I've promised. You were the one avoiding an answer, which is strange if you agree with this fellow.


Only you and your cronies, everyone else is quite clear.


I don't have cronies. Fellows who share a recognition of what is real and what is not are not 'cronies' or a 'cabal'.

And I suspect even your ideological allies are somewhat mystified by your reluctance to answer, especially in light of the fact that I'm more than happy to answer your question once my fair and reasonable terms were met.


It is a non-question, an attempt at prevarication.


Not at all. Its quite illuminating, actually.


I have said on a number of occassions so far that I am in agreement with Renk that gassing stories are unsustainable and fraudulent.


There's more to the Holocaust than gas chambers. In fact, it seems that your primary focus on what you pasted was body disposal. Why would you wish only to address gas chambers when you're actually ASKING me about something else?


You know this anyway from our many exchanges in the past. Why do you insist on further damaging your credibility with this nonsensical tactic?


My credibility isn't damaged in the slightest.


You call the distinction between a theoretical issue an an empircal one "rather incredible"?


There's nothing empirical about questions, like these:

In sum, where does the truth lie with regard to Auschwitz concentration
camp? What reports or trial testimonies should one consult to find
corroboration for the death toll as it is understood today? Pressac has
written that the testimony of Nyisli must be divided by four to arrive at a
true figure, for example.

These questions were asked to suit his hypothesis of the Holocaust, presumably that it didn't happen. I suppose you were right, though for the wrong reasons. I was being to generous with the word theory, not too stingy. :p


That speaks loads about you, the level you will sink to to evade the substantive matter.


Oh? We see me answering your question without any reservation once you answer A SINGLE QUESTION I asked....albeit very late in coming. The reader can see which of us is avoiding which question.


Haven't you just answered your own silly question? :222: (substituting the term 'revisionist' where you have 'denier')?


I don't understand how my observation that you're both Holocaust deniers has anything to do with your endorsement of Renk's hypothesis.


I am unfamiliar with all his views on the holohoax so I cant say, however I am familiar with his views about body disposal figures for Auschwitz (as is anyone who has read the exchange) and that is what we are supposed to be talking about here, not the nebulous phenomenon known as "the Holocaust" which even court historians have trouble defining clearly.


But I thought you agreed with him on gas chambers? :p

If you agree with him on the issues you're familiar with, there's no reason to refuse to answer the question I asked you. Are you telling us now that you were just wasting everyone's time?

Oh, and what is a 'holohoax'? You just said the Holocaust happened at the begining of your reply.


We are concerned only with the substance of that exchange which is the topic of this thread.


LOL It took you 3 pages to endorse your side of the exchange in THE THREAD YOU STARTED!

I mean, I even simplified the question to ask if you agreed with what you POSTED from Renk, and I couldn't even get a response to that until just now.


If you want to start another thread on Renk's more theoretical views on holocostology in general, I'm sure I would join in.


Nope. This thread will do just fine for that purpose. Renk's theories on the Holocaust relate to this thread.


Now attend to the question:

The question was already answered in the thread.

Dear Mr. Renk,

The current figure for deaths at Auschwitz was already reached by Raul
Hilberg in his 1961 book by working from the documentary (not eyewitness)
base of the number of Jews transported to Auschwitz and a reasonable
estimate of the number of survivors. No serious historian (from Reitlinger
in the 1950's and Hilberg in the 1960's to the present) has even accepted
the Soviet figure of 4 million, which was based on the erroneous method of
estimating maximum capacity for burning bodies and then falsely assuming
that that maximum capacity was in reality realized every single day that the
gas chamber/crematorium complexes were in existence.

Given the Soviet understanding of history as functional rather than
truthful, once given, the estimate was never corrected or revised.
Historians like Hilberg, and the newer estimates, are not based on the
eyewitness estimates, because though such witnesses could accurately report that part of the procedure of killing they actually witnessed, they were not in a position to make accurate calculations concerning the overall and cumulative killing operations. The search for the single witness or single document that proves or disproves all is framing the research question
wrongly. It is out of a series of documents, i.e. that different deportation
lists, and a reasonable estimate for the countries (especially Poland) for
which we do not have accurate lists that the process must start.

Then Renk, in his rather pathetic effort to continue the dialogue to try and trap Browning into saying something which he could cut apart on his website (Most of the bitterness in his commentary seems to reflect his failure to do this), AGREES with Browning and then later seems to forget:

I agree that the Holocaust historians have based their estimates for the
number of victims on empirical data such as train deportation lists and,
more recently, the declassified documents of the Auschwitz Zentralbauleitung
in Moscow [note- i.e. coke consumption and cremation theory]. I would also agree that "the search for the single witness or single document that proves or disproves all is framing the research question wrongly" and that
conclusions have been drawn from a confluence of data. I do not question the
validity of the historical methodology in the absence of direct proof, and
would not expect you or a colleague to refer to a single document or
testimony to "prove or disprove all".

Hence, THIS question:

if it is understood that the Soviets deliberately inflated
the Auschwitz death toll, what amount of credibility should we ascribe to
the testimonies which corroborate the discredited Soviet reports which
impossibly reported 10,000 daily murders/deaths at Auschwitz?

Has already been answered. Eye witness testimony only applies to the part of the system of murder that they actually witnessed. Their guesses or estimates from that point are already questioned and usually discarded by Western historians.

Its interesting, but not surprising, that Renk neglects WHY the Soviets inflated the Auschwitz figure, which had more to do with identifying a death place for their POWs than inflating Jewish losses.

[cerberus]

Now it is my turn to pose
some questions. Who are you? What is your agenda?


Reinhold this sounds like the start of some paranoia on your part , you have spent too long reading the revisionist sub plots.

I am sure that approaches like Renk made to Browning have come his way on a regular basis , not to mention a fair amount of abuse.
Browning was within his rights to say "hold on who are you and what are you about".
It was Renk who would not reply ,its not really "snooker" more of "I refused to answer your call".
Bit like being asked the answer to a "Yes" or "no" question , Mr Renk and yourself have a lot in common.

Richard Evans gets the same - most of it via the publication of his contact details on Irvings website and the rather crude presenation.

I don't have cronies. Fellows who share a recognition of what is real and what is not are not 'cronies' or a 'cabal'

This is pure "Irving".;)

There's more to the Holocaust than gas chambers.

Well actually no Sulla, if my memory serves me right Reinhold told me that slave labour activity /complex like the "Dora" works had nothing to do with the "Holocaust"for some it all hinges around "the gassing lie".
Nothing wrong with the laws passed in Germany , "it was all legal".
That the law was made to be deliberately racist and discriminatory was not an issue.
This legality was the process which brought people to the CZ / EZ system .
It was we are led to believe , to have been in the interests of the German people.
The theft of their property did not happen , it was merely "recycled" , that it was " recycled" into the German economy or the pockets of the SS (who did cream off for themselves) does not really matter - theft of people's property and their lives in slave labour from which the State , private industry and the SS profited - all nothing to do with the Holocaust , it was all "legal".
Those who could not work - those seen in the photographs of " The Auschwitz Album" , the elderly adn the infants may have gone to the Monowitz camp I am told , no answer when reinhold was asked what labour a crippled old woman and a three or four year old child might do ?

Ah well it could have been worse , they could have been gassed.:rolleyes:
As far as reviewing history goes " court historians" who do this are seen to be acknowledging their own lies and its taken as proof that "the revisionsist" case holds water.
Bit like Renk's take on the Browning discussion.

[Basil Fawlty]

Now, why did it take you so long to say that? The length of this exchange has been dictated by your unwillingness to stake a position on Renk.There was no unwillingness, I said some pages back that I agree with him that homocidal gas chambers are a fraud and specuifically, that the figures under discussion pose a real problem for you.
When will you abandon what you have just admitted are lies, ie, Holocaust denial?
I have admitted no such thing. You are lying.
We've made a great deal of progress. After all, you not only agree with Renk, but also with Browning, that you do not question the fact that millions of Jews were murdered in the Holocaust.That is a blatant lie. The agreement between them is on the evidence as presented in the exchange, in other words, Renk and Browning are agreed that these are the correct sources and claims that are made (Renk is not distorting the evidence otherwise Browning would have been quick to point that out) - it is a fact that the witnesses claim the figures provided by Renk, Browning does not dispute that. It is a fact that the Soviet report claims what it claims, and, it is a fact that the witness figures converge on the Soviet report, as is plain to see. It is a fact that the Soviet report on this matter is rejected by everyone (including you). So far, no one disputes these facts. Therefore if any historians uses those witnesses to compile figures for deaths at Auschwitz they would be contradicting themselves.
Browning actually didn't run from anything, nor have I. We have done a simple experiment here. Read your own paste:

Dear Mr. Renk,

The tone of our correspondence seems to have changed from exchange to
interrogation, in which you feel entitled to demand answers at your
convenience to an unending series of questions. Now it is my turn to pose
some questions. Who are you? What is your agenda?

Christopher Browning

I did not respond to Browning's final letter.

As we know, ladies and gentlemen, Holocaust deniers DO NOT LIKE to answer questions. We've seen that played out here, in miniature between two posters.Of course he ran, by trying to change the subject by becoming ad hominem. How does Renks' identity or his "agenda" have any bearing on the witness claims for burning figures at Auschwitz? Renk signs each letter with his name Brian Renk, so what's the problem?

One could easily ask what is Browning's "agenda"? But that would be a distraction from the contradiction that is at the heart of official historians claims about Auschwitz and does it matter?
Do we all not have a sense of fair play? Is it not fair to RESPOND to questions if you're going to ask them? Why is it that I, or Mr. Browning, or anyone else have to answer a deluge of questions without the courtesy of having our questions answered?First of all Browning is a an academic historian. That means he is a public person qua academic. People have a right to put question to him and he should welcome such queries. It matters not who says something only whether it is true or false. The same tactic again and again and again from the defenders of the official holocaust story when they discover or suspect they are dealing with a revisionist is to become ad hominem as fast as possible.
What kind of ideology is so unable to defend itself as to harass others and refuse to stake a position on any issue?They were not talking about ideology and so neither should we. The discussion is about the witness statements concerning body disposal figures for Auschwitz-Birkenau. I have no idea whether or not Mr. Renk has ideological commitments of any kind.
I pointed it out earlier. Its a "Choose your own Adventure" system of belief. I, as a fellow who knows and understands the facts of the Holocaust, am pretty well staked out on this issue.You understand how to twist and turn and evade. I don't say, "I believe in this camp but not in this one" when its convenient. That's a straw man - No-one denies the existence of camps. What is disputed is the existnece of homicidal gas chambers in said camps.These guys have no such compulsion. There's no solidity to the faith of Holocaust Denial. Its all smoke and mirrors.Once again you are lying as is plain to see.
Its quite obvious he misrepresented himself at the beginning of this exchange. Its quite obvious that you are once again attacking the man in order to avoid facing one of the contradictions which sinks the story on Auschwitz


Ad hominem attack? We've sure lowered the bar. Asking you your position on the statements YOU posted is now a personal stab? :nono:

C'mon now.
You have lied and made personal attacks in every exchange we have every had. Its not personal because you do it to everyone who is a revisionist (excepts mods and admins of course), its a tactic. Its a cheap but sometimes effective (in that it wastes a lot of time and impresses the weak minded) ploy to avoid talking about the evidence.
And I suspect even your ideological allies are somewhat mystified by your reluctance to answer, especially in light of the fact that I'm more than happy to answer your question once my fair and reasonable terms were met. This too is a lie because a number of people told you to get on with it and stop prevaricating. Scroll back and see.
There's more to the Holocaust than gas chambers. In fact, it seems that your primary focus on what you pasted was body disposal. Why would you wish only to address gas chambers when you're actually ASKING me about something else?Yet another attempt to change the subject. The topic here is body disposal rates at Auschwitz-Birkenau. The body disposal rates are inextricably bound up with the gas chamber claims because the witness statements under review are all describing the process of gassing and burning. You are truly desperate.
My credibility isn't damaged in the slightest. What credibility?
There's nothing empirical about questions, like these:

In sum, where does the truth lie with regard to Auschwitz concentration
camp? What reports or trial testimonies should one consult to find
corroboration for the death toll as it is understood today? Pressac has
written that the testimony of Nyisli must be divided by four to arrive at a
true figure, for example.Of course they are empirical because they could only be answered empirically! I wonder if you noticed the question immediately preceding the extract above:
Also, is the historical community aware that two of the Soviet
Commissions' members (Burdenko and Nikolai) were also members of the Special State Commision which submitted the fabricated reports on German guilt for the Katyn massacres (USSR-054)?Were you aware of that (I guess so as you claim above to be an expert on the Holocaust: “as a fellow who knows and understands the facts of the Holocaust, am pretty well staked out on this issue”), and if so would you agree with me, as someone who champions fair play, (quote; “Do we all not have a sense of fair play”) that the whole Soviet report should be set aside as unreliable coming as it does from the pens of know fabricators?
These questions were asked to suit his hypothesis of the Holocaust, presumably that it didn't happen. I suppose you were right, though for the wrong reasons. I was being to generous with the word theory, not too stingy. :p
What is wrong with those questions? They are perfectly reasonable when you are faced with often wildly contradictory testimonies. In fact they are the only questions because when it boils down to it, your precious gas chamber story rests on witness statements. Without them, all other evidence is purely circumstantial and can be explained without recourse to extermination fantasies.
Oh? We see me answering your question without any reservation once you answer A SINGLE QUESTION I asked....albeit very late in coming. The reader can see which of us is avoiding which question. Yes, indeed they can! Scanning this post I notice that you still do not answer the question, as I expected.
I don't understand how my observation that you're both Holocaust deniers has anything to do with your endorsement of Renk's hypothesis.
It is to do with the penchant for gas chamber defender's quick resort to the ad hominem.
But I thought you agreed with him on gas chambers? :p

If you agree with him on the issues you're familiar with, there's no reason to refuse to answer the question I asked you. Are you telling us now that you were just wasting everyone's time?Except that your question in the form in which it was put extended to everything about Renk and about "the Holocaust", in other words you are trying to muddy the waters by extending the discussion in all directions.
Oh, and what is a 'holohoax'? You just said the Holocaust happened at the beginning of your reply. I never said anything of the kind. Once again you lie. This is what I said at the opening of the last reply: Not only do I agree with Renk in that exchange, but so does Browning, who at least had the decency to go silent and terminate the exchange. Browning does not dispute the facts as presented in that exchange, how could he, they are all gleaned from the primary sources.Where does it say that I believe that "the Holocaust happened"?
Nope. This thread will do just fine for that purpose. Renk's theories on the Holocaust relate to this thread.I would be intrigued to know what they are and do they have any bearing on the substantive matter at hand
The question was already answered in the thread.

Dear Mr. Renk,

The current figure for deaths at Auschwitz was already reached by Raul
Hilberg in his 1961 book by working from the documentary (not eyewitness)
base of the number of Jews transported to Auschwitz and a reasonable
estimate of the number of survivors. No serious historian (from Reitlinger
in the 1950's and Hilberg in the 1960's to the present) has even accepted
the Soviet figure of 4 million, which was based on the erroneous method of
estimating maximum capacity for burning bodies and then falsely assuming
that that maximum capacity was in reality realized every single day that the
gas chamber/crematorium complexes were in existence.

Given the Soviet understanding of history as functional rather than
truthful, once given, the estimate was never corrected or revised.
Historians like Hilberg, and the newer estimates, are not based on the
eyewitness estimates, because though such witnesses could accurately report that part of the procedure of killing they actually witnessed, they were not in a position to make accurate calculations concerning the overall and cumulative killing operations. The search for the single witness or single document that proves or disproves all is framing the research question
wrongly. It is out of a series of documents, i.e. that different deportation
lists, and a reasonable estimate for the countries (especially Poland) for
which we do not have accurate lists that the process must start.

Then Renk, in his rather pathetic effort to continue the dialogue to try and trap Browning into saying something which he could cut apart on his website (Most of the bitterness in his commentary seems to reflect his failure to do this), AGREES with Browning and then later seems to forget:

I agree that the Holocaust historians have based their estimates for the
number of victims on empirical data such as train deportation lists and,
more recently, the declassified documents of the Auschwitz Zentralbauleitung
in Moscow [note- i.e. coke consumption and cremation theory]. I would also agree that "the search for the single witness or single document that proves or disproves all is framing the research question wrongly" and that
conclusions have been drawn from a confluence of data. I do not question the
validity of the historical methodology in the absence of direct proof, and
would not expect you or a colleague to refer to a single document or
testimony to "prove or disprove all".

Hence, THIS question:

if it is understood that the Soviets deliberately inflated
the Auschwitz death toll, what amount of credibility should we ascribe to
the testimonies which corroborate the discredited Soviet reports which
impossibly reported 10,000 daily murders/deaths at Auschwitz? Here is the question: “what amount of credibility should we ascribe to
the testimonies which corroborate the discredited Soviet reports . . .” to which we still await an answer. The report that was opened by known fabricators and towards which the witness statements converge, the very same witnesses that official accounts still heavily rely on?
Has already been answered. Eye witness testimony only applies to the part of the system of murder that they actually witnessed. Their guesses or estimates from that point are already questioned and usually discarded by Western historians. Well that wont wash for a moment and Browning does not say what you are saying. What he says is this: I think the 10,000 per day figure testified to by Mueller and others was the maximum reached during the Hungarian deportations, with the use of open pit burning as well as crematoria. The Soviet report then took this figure . . .So as far as Browning is concerned, the rejected Soviet figure comes from one of the witnesses!
According to Browning this witness is reporting what he claims to have seen.

Hilberg is heavily reliant on Muller for his account of the gassing and body disposal process (see Vol. III of Destruction pp. 976 ff. 1985 revised ed) I presume an expert such as yourself would have this important work?). Hilberg derives his ultimate figures for killings in Auschwitz from train arrival figures.

:Thus an eyewiteness report that claims that 10,000 Jews were killed at Auschwitz in one day is not a confirmation of the Soviet figure of 4 million.
These particular witnesses all claimed to be part of the process. And you still have not answered the question concerning the credibility of those witnesses which all converge on the rejected Soviet report?
Its interesting, but not surprising, that Renk neglects WHY the Soviets inflated the Auschwitz figure, which had more to do with identifying a death place for their POWs than inflating Jewish losses.We know that, and I think everyone is agreed on that.

The real question is why do the witness statements - which the even the cited Hilberg is reliant on - converge on the rejected Soviet report and what credibility should we lend to these witnesses? So when you take away your witnesses (who almost all contradict each other and sometimes themselves on important matters – which is why official historians always cherry-pick with these chaps) you are simply left with the question, where did they all go? If we had the departure records that question could be cleared up quite simply. But then that is why we don’t have the records.

[Basil Fawlty]

Reinhold this sounds like the start of some paranoia on your part , you have spent too long reading the revisionist sub plots.:rolleyes: You do realise that is Browning you are quoting?
Richard Evans gets the same - most of it via the publication of his contact details on Irvings website and the rather crude presenation.Evans is a gun for hire who interfered with the career of a young scholar in New Zealand despite his thesis being accepted by his university authorities. That is a gross breach of professional ethics. There is always a bad smell when you mention his name.

[Basil Fawlty]

Renk does not respond and gives this explanation:
I did not respond to Browning's final letter. I had respectfully asked very specific questions, and he was clearly not prepared to answer them. The follow up letter came after a month of silence during an onging correspondence, that is not unreasonable: Browning seems to have been reluctant to respond to this last letter, in
which I clarified what it was that I wished for him to address. After having
awaited his response for one month, I wrote again, attaching the letter of
April 23 to which he had not responded:Attaching the original letter. It was possible that Browning did not receive it (highly unlikely), people do resend things in such circumstances, nothing rude or sinsiter in that.


I don't think my "agenda" is relevant.That's right, 'agenda' is a pejorative in the context and is also an ad hominem. Such matters are irrelevant to the evidence and facts under discussion.
I was asking a question about the significance of a specifically false reference in the witness testimony.
It's a very interesting exchange. I asked simple questions and received
simple answers. However, when it was unequivocally spelled out that Dr.
Browning's answers failed to address the subject I was specifically
interested in, he did not wish to continue the correspondence. Typical.Of course and to be expected. The story must be maintained at all costs.

[cerberus]

Yes and I applied it to you .
Evans is not a gun for hire , he was asked to do a job , he did it , he was paid.
Bad smell , you invest too much in the world of Irving and Hofmann .

[Basil Fawlty]

Yes and I applied it to you .Falsely of course, what's new.
Evans is not a gun for hire , he was asked to do a job , he did it , he was paid.
Bad smell , you invest too much in the world of Irving and Hofmann .A gun for hire.

[cerberus]

A gun for hire Opinion.
I did not respond to Browning's final letter. I had respectfully asked very specific questions, and he was clearly not prepared to answer them.

Based on the eventual use of the correspondnce is it any wonder , Renk never said that he would be sharing it across the internet or at IHR conferences etc.
That's right, 'agenda' is a pejorative in the context and is also an ad hominem. Such matters are irrelevant to the evidence and facts under discussion.
I would disagree, for agenda read honesty and good will , I suggest that renk had not either on his "agenda" no matter how "respectful" ( read insincere) he was making himself.
If this sounds harsh , look to you how the correspondence was used , private it was never meant to be not to Renk.
I would as a rule ask for permission to use correspondence , even to share it with others , Renk was never going to apply this - he had as his use proves an agenda to serve , he was being less than respectful and honest by what he failed to say.
Typical
Again , opinion , I would say understandable , not typical.
Falsely of course, what's new.
Read "cronie" , seems to have elements of paranoia.

[Basil Fawlty]

Opinion.Even you said he was paid. Its not a matter of opinion, its a matter of terminology. Some prostitutes like to call themselves 'escorts', still prostitutes though.

Based on the eventual use of the correspondnce is it any wonder , Renk never said that he would be sharing it across the internet or at IHR conferences etc.Matters of historical scholarship are of public interest.
I would disagree, for agenda read honesty and good will , I suggest that renk had not either on his "agenda" no matter how "respectful" ( read insincere) he was making himself.
If this sounds harsh , look to you how the correspondence was used , private it was never meant to be not to Renk.Where is that stipulation in Browning's response?

I would as a ruleask for permission to use correspondence , even to share it with others , Renk was never going to apply this - he had as his use proves an agenda to serve , he was being less than respectful and honest by what he failed to say.
Again , opinion , I would say understandable , not typical.

Read "cronie" , seems to have elements of paranoia.Of course none of this has any bearing on the body disposal figures for Auschwitz, the topic of this thread.

[cerberus]

There is a considerable difference between the service offerred by a lady of the night and the employment of an expert witness.
It hinges on your opinion alone , he was asked to be an expert witness there is no comparison between that and a hired gun.
As far as I am aware Evans is not a firearms expert and I would hasten to add I have no experience on the contacting or hire of the services of ladies in a professional capacity.:nono: :p
Matters of historical scholarship are of public interest
And the sharing of corrspondence should only be done by consent , I would look poorly on Renk for his lack of respect and disregard shown towards Browning.
If Renk counts himself as any kind of "historian" he shows a distinct lack of ethics.
Where is that stipulation in Browning's response
I would call it manners and within the terms of any historical research I would call it ethical.
I have with permission forwarded information to some leading UK historians.
Some of this has been used in publications and in every case the author has approached me for contact details of the veteran concerned to obtain their consent in using the correspondence.
I think that its a matter of manners and ethics. Obviously Renk did not.
Actually it does have a bearing Reinhold as it reflects upon the stature of Renk as a historian and an individual.

[Basil Fawlty]

There is a considerable difference between the service offerred by a lady of the night and the employment of an expert witness.And tell me, seeing as you are in the mood for moralising, what justification there is for taking money to try and destroy a young scholar's career?

[cerberus]

See above. Was there a contract ?

[Sulla the Dictator]

I just lost my fucking reply.

[Basil Fawlty]

See above. Was there a contract ?The 'contract' was out on the young scholar and your hero Skunky was the hit man.

[cerberus]

It can be found on lots of revsionist sites , what were the details.
The "contract" - if money was paid what were the grounds ?
Who paid who , what amount, when , was it unethical within the terms of education , what was the concern ?
Seems that Evans is still in his seat so if this was all the act of a "hit man " / "gun for hire" why is he still in a seat of learning ?
It is all implication as far as I can see, "nudge nudge , wink wink , know what I mean"

[cerberus]

http://www.hist.cam.ac.uk/academic_staff/further_details/evans-r.html

I think what you allege and what took place might be two different events.

Attached is a link to Richard Evans professional academic life.

Just take care when you rubbish him , he might be reading it .:)

[Basil Fawlty]

http://www.hist.cam.ac.uk/academic_staff/further_details/evans-r.html

I think what you allege and what took place might be two different events.

Attached is a link to Richard Evans professional academic life.

Just take care when you rubbish him , he might be reading it .:)The New Zealand affair is all in the public domain as you well know, so knock off the mock outrage.

[cerberus]

Reinhold you read and project too much into things, no mock outrage.
I just can't square what you are saying or implying with the real world.
If Evans acted in an unethical or unprofessional manner he would not have his job or his place at a university.
He is I believe still in his seat / chair .

[A. Radek]

I just lost my fucking reply.

Quit being lazy and just keep notepad or wordpad open, type the stuff in there and then post it, so you don't lose it. Another trick is before hitting the submit button just right click, select all, then copy. That way you still got it as well.

(yes, I'm sure you 'know all that'. LOL ...)

[Sulla the Dictator]

Alright, I've had time to come to grips with my rage over that lost post. My Internet Explorer crashed, which I'd never seen happen before and smacks of the Gods themselves trying to subvert my will. :p

There was no unwillingness, I said some pages back that I agree with him that homocidal gas chambers are a fraud and specuifically, that the figures under discussion pose a real problem for you.


Sure there was. I asked you if you agreed with Renk on WHAT YOU PASTED as well as his theories on the Holocaust. You ignored the first part, danced around the second, and then brought up this rather irrelevant thing about you agreeing with him about gas chambers.

It took five pages for you to take a position on what you pasted by itself. You haven't even gotten as far as Renk's positions on other issues. I'll settle for half the answer rather than an ongoing tapdance.


I have admitted no such thing. You are lying.


Its an error to throw that word around. Especially when I can prove what I say.

Renk: I do not question the fact that millions of Jews were murdered in
the Holocaust.

O'Reilly: I agree with Renk in that exchange


--Renk's exchange with Browning


That is a blatant lie.


Browning certainly doesn't deny that millions of Jews were murdered in the Holocaust. Renk is on record here saying he doesn't deny that millions of Jews were murdered in the Holocaust. You agree with Renk on that issue, according to you, and thus also with Browning. There is no lie.

Unless you lied when you said you agreed with Renk.


The agreement between them is on the evidence as presented in the exchange, in other words, Renk and Browning are agreed that these are the correct sources and claims that are made (Renk is not distorting the evidence otherwise Browning would have been quick to point that out) - it is a fact that the witnesses claim the figures provided by Renk, Browning does not dispute that.


Renk is attempting to use testimony in a way it isn't used in the historical community. For example, when discussing witness testimony Holocaust deniers often conflate testimony soon after the war with rememberences THIRTY YEARS after.

Obviously expecting someone to remember and recite in detail their wartime ordeal 30 years after the fact is absurd. Its also absurd to suggest that these are the exclusive sources for the Holocaust. Jean-Claude Pressac says it well here:

What can we say about so many singular or fanciful testimonies, other that we must not act like Henri Roques [read Faurisson] with the “confessions” of Kurt Gerstein and conclude that the witness is not a true witness. Instead we must try, as Georges Wellers did in his refutation of Roques’ “thesis”, to assess the value of the testimony in the light of known documents and try to explain any oddities, errors and even lies it might contain as a function of the individual’s nature, what he has suffered, what he has seen or not been able to see, the exact place where he was, the date of his deportation and of his deposition or his account. All this is important and should be given due consideration in validating, confirming or rejecting a testimony that can rightly be criticized. A good Auschwitz historian should now be able, when confronted with a former prisoner or SS man, or when reading the memoirs of one or the other, to detect immediately whether he is an authentic witness and what are the strong and weak points of his testimony [A few years ago “Paris-Match” almost published the “Memoirs of Dr Mengele” I read only one paragraph of the last page, not even concerned with Auschwitz, and could see it was an obvious fake.] Maitre Jouanneau, without necessarily adopting the reserved attitude of the historian, was right to mention these essential witnesses, even though their testimony should be qualified.

Filip Muller cannot take an accurate count of people being destroyed. He estimates. And his estimates change and grow or shrink with time. Horror influences remembrance. Filip Muller can, however, testify to the fact that people were cremated in large numbers.

This is actually 100% correct:

I think the 10,000 per day figure testified to by Mueller and others was the
maximum reached during the Hungarian deportations, with the use of open pit
burning as well as crematoria. The Soviet report then took this figure and
treated it as a daily average over the whole period of the camp gassings,
when this figure was a maximum reached only on occassion at the height of
the Hungarian deportations. Thus an eyewiteness report that claims that
10,000 Jews were killed at Auschwitz in one day is not a confirmation of the
Soviet figure of 4 million.


...as it relates to Muller. Muller's primary testimony relates to 1944, and in his account is actually talking ABOUT the Hungarian action that Browning is referring to. Specifically, Muller is referring to the capabilities of the Krematoria after refurbishment in May of 1944. Disposal was the bottleneck for murder in these camps.

While you and Renk comb through Muller's testimony for inconsistancies, you IGNORE the fact that the source is coming from Muller's book written 34 years after the events!

Muller can't be expected to have an EXACT memory of dead when he never even had a method of calculating it. Anymore than a German infantry soldier at Kursk can have an exact figure of armor lost when he tells the story to his grandchildren three decades later, without having read about the battle.

To such an infantry soldier, it would have seemed as though the Germans had lost ALL of their armor. He has no real method of counting the losses at the time, no overview of the grand scale of the conflict, and honestly he has more important things like his own survival to worry about.

When he remembers, he'll guess. He'll try and recall how much armor the regiment next to him loss, guess at the number of armor formations at the battle, and extrapolate the figure in order to RELAY HIS EXPERIENCE.

So to, someone like Muller will try to estimate how many people he was involved in the disposal of. He'll extrapolate his figure by multiplying his WORST experience (IE, top effieciency for the Krema) by the number of Krematoria at the camp. And he's doing this 34 years after the event itself.

So I'll invite you to perform an experiment. Go to your Grandfather and ask him what he was doing in April 1944, May 1944, and June 1944. Demand specifics. Demand detail. And then cross reference what he tells you with historical evidence. When you find out that your Grandfather mixes up what he had done in MARCH of 1944 with what he did in JULY of 1944, call him a liar and ask him who he is working for.


It is a fact that the Soviet report claims what it claims, and, it is a fact that the witness figures converge on the Soviet report, as is plain to see.


The Soviet report MISUSES witness testimony. Soviet methodology is lazy. But not even HOLOCAUST DENIERS deny Soviet POW deaths. So if we recognize the fact that the Soviet POWs were, in fact, killed in camps like Auschwitz, we then have to examine the motive for Soviet claims on this subject.

They were trying to give a disposal method to justify the high concentration of Soviet dead at this particular camp. Moreover, why shouldn't they? After all, some of the greatest evidence for their claim of "10,000 a day" came not from inmates at Auschwitz, but from captured SS documents.

These documents aren't even doubted by Holocaust Deniers. Holocaust Deniers correctly fall in line with ACTUAL historians on this issue, as they both correctly point out that SS officers in the field have a vested interest in exaggerating the capacity of their death camp for the sake of prestige and reward, both in advancement and funding.

Such as this:

“The Auschwitz camp has a special task in the settlement of the Jewish question. The most modern methods make it possible to implement the Fuhrer Order very quickly and discreetly. The so-called "resettlement action" for the Jews proceeds as follows: The Jews arrive in special trains (goods wagons) towards evening and are taken by a special line to a special area of the camp. There they are unloaded and examined by a medical board in the presence of the Camp Commandant and several leading SS in the first place to see if they are fit for work.

"Here anybody who can be integrated into the work process in any way is sent to a special camp. Those with some temporary ailment are sent immediately to the quarantine camp and are brought back to health through a special diet. The basic principle is: keep as many prisoners as possible for labour. The "resettlement action" of the old sort is completely rejected, for it is not permissible to systematically destroy substantial labour capacities.

“The unfit go to a biggish house, into the basement rooms, which are accessible from the outside. They descend 5 or 6 steps and come to a long, well-built and ventilated basement, fitted with benches on the right and left. It is brightly lit, and above the benches are numbers. The prisoners are told that they are to be disinfected and washed ready for their new tasks. They therefore have to undress completely to be bathed. In order to avoid any panic or disorder, they are told to arrange their clothes neatly and leave them under a number so that they can find their things again after the bath. Everything proceeds in complete calm. They then go through a small corridor and arrive in a big basement room that resembles a shower room. In this room, there are three big pillars. Into these it is possible from above, outside the basement, to lower certain products. After 300 to 400 people have gathered in this room, the doors are closed and from above containers with the products are lowered into the pillars. When the containers reach the floor of the pillars, they produce certain substances that put the people to sleep in one minute. A few minutes later, the door on the other side is opened, leading to a lift. The hair of the corpses is cut off and the teeth are broken out (gold teeth) by qualified people (Jews). It has been observed that Jews have hidden jewels, gold, platinum, etc. in hollow teeth. After this the corpses are burned (As fresh corpses burn particularly well, the whole process requires only 1/2 to 1 Zentner [25 to 50kg] of coke). The work itself is carried out by Jewish prisoners who will never leave this camp.

“The result to date of this “resettlement action”: 500,000 Jews. [u]The present capacity of the “resettlement action” furnaces: 10,000 in 24 hours.” [/u]


--SS Major Franke-Gricksch

http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/camps/auschwitz/images/Franke-Gricksch-report.jpg

Indeed, Renk goes on further to slur Pressac by taking his words out of context. Pressac is DIRECTLY referring reports like the one above when he says this:

On 28th June, following the handover of Krematorium III, the last one to be completed, Jährling calculated the overall throughout for the five Krematorien as 4,756 people in 24 hours, and sent this information to SS General Kammler in Berlin [Document 68]. This “official” figure, coolly doubled when explaining operations to high ranking visitors (cf. SS Major Franke Gricksch’s report above, giving a figure of 10,000 in 24 hours), had no basis in practice, and probably has to be divided by two or three to arrive at the true figure. The different visitors, SS, political leaders or others, were obviously unable to check the figures given by the camp SS, but accepted them as true and went away praising the Auschwitz SS for having found such a splendid solution to the “Jewish question”.

http://www.mazal.org/Pressac/Pressac0244.htm

So when Renk says:

Pressac has written that the testimony of Nyisli must be divided by four to arrive at a true figure, for example.

He's obviously wrong. He's conflating THIS discussion about SS reports to higher command levels with another issue regarding a surpluss convoy regarding disposal in a ditch, where Pressac points out that about 200 to 300 were probably disposed of in the ditch while the other 3,000 were sent to the other Krema, and 2,000 were likely taken in as labor.

Not that [i]Nyiszli[/i] would have known the specifics of where they were going. He saw them lead off a group from the larger group, which he assumed to be a surplus convoy, then went back to work as a slave for Mengele's horror show.

Nyiszli considers that the “surplus of a convoy” was 5,000 people, while this number represents in fact the greater part of a single convoy (the average being 5,400). Part of this number would be declared fit for work and enter the camp, while those declared unfit were destined to die. Krematorien II and III could “absorb” about 3,000 “unfit” per day; Krematorium V about 1,000; the rest or “surplus” were sent to Bunker 2/V. A “surplus” would more probably be 200 to 300 people, If the state of the site on 3rd March 1945 corresponded to that of summer 1944, which is more than likely, the TWO ditches of 300m² described by Nyiszli, would be reduced to A SINGLE ONE of 30m². A pit of this size is more compatible with the incineration of 200 to 300 people than 5,000.

http://www.mazal.org/pressac/Pressac0179.htm


It is a fact that the Soviet report on this matter is rejected by everyone (including you). So far, no one disputes these facts. Therefore if any historians uses those [I]witnesses[/I] to compile figures for deaths at Auschwitz [B]they would be contradicting themselves[/B].


Not if the Soviets MISUSED the witnesses, in the way Browning referred to. Not if the Soviets didn't properly evaluate the documents they examined.

The Soviets DID lose millions of POWs. So far, no one disputes THAT. They just didn't all die at Auschwitz. Plenty of them did, however. If memory serves, for example, something like 300 or 400 out of the original 10,000 Russian POWs the Germans used to build Birkenau survived the first two years there.


Of course he ran, by trying to change the subject by becoming ad hominem.


He clearly identifies Renk's mischaracterization of evidence. Why argue with someone who is intentionally being dishonest?


How does Renks' identity or his "agenda" have any bearing on the witness claims for burning figures at Auschwitz?


Because his characterization of these witness testimonies is false. If he's wrong out of ignorance, then whats the point of talking to him? If he's intentionally attempting to mislead, whats the point of talking to him?


Renk signs each letter with his name Brian Renk, so what's the problem?


Holocaust Deniers are not well known scholars. "Brian Renk" was meaningless to me until I googled him.


One could easily ask what is Browning's "agenda"?


He doesn't have one. Renk does. The very nature of what you pasted SHOWS Renk's agenda. He seeks confrontation with historians in order to advance his conspiracy theory.


First of all Browning is a an academic historian. That means he is a public person qua academic. People have a right to put question to him and he should welcome such queries.


Academic figures are not public property. If Herr Renk is interested in discussing issues with Professor Browning, he should take his class.


It matters not who says something only whether it is true or false.


When someone misrepresents a thing, WHY he misrepresents it is of interest.


The same tactic again and again and again from the defenders of the official holocaust story when they discover or suspect they are dealing with a revisionist is to become ad hominem as fast as possible.


What "Holocaust story"? You acknowledge it happened.

I do not question the fact that millions of Jews were murdered in
the Holocaust.


They were not talking about ideology and so neither should we.


YOU are. YOU refer to a "Holohoax" or "Holocaust story".


That's a straw man - [B]No-one [/B]denies the existence of camps. What is disputed is the existnece of homicidal gas chambers in said camps.


Actually, thats not what Renk is questioning. He says, I'll quote again:

I do not question the fact that millions of Jews were murdered in
the Holocaust.

And his letters to Browning are asking about the numbers that witness say could be DISPOSED OF.

Body disposal is the main issue here, according to Renk. NOT the EXISTANCE of gas chambers. ("Homicidal gas chambers" is a laughable redundancy) I'm sure Renk is a Holocaust Denier. But he doesn't deny the existance of gas chambers in this exchange with Browning.

And since he doesn't deny the fact that millions of Jews were murdered in the Holocaust, and since you AGREE with him, there's no point in debating the existance of these chambers since we already generally know the numbers of Jews who were murdered through shooting.


Once again you are lying as is plain to see.


I don't lie.


Its quite obvious that you are once again attacking the man in order to avoid facing one of the contradictions which sinks the story on Auschwitz


Well you said that you and Renk deny the existance of gas chambers. Yet he doesn't challenge that in this exchange. He wants to hide the fact that he is a Holocaust denier.


You have lied and made personal attacks in every exchange we have every had.


LOL You're hyper-sensitive.


Its not personal because you do it to everyone who is a revisionist (excepts mods and admins of course), its a [I]tactic[/I].


Rubbish. People who give respect recieve it. I've had heated debates with every white supremacist on this board at one time or another. The suggestion that I'm 'kinder' to mods or admins is laughable.

The only people you could be referring to are Ebus and Fade, who I have known for over 3 years now on this board. And I think either of them can tell you I never shied away from heated debate, admins or no.

I don't like racial or ethnic slurs. I don't like terms like "Holohoax". Their crude and intended to provoke. And while I'm not provoked by their use because I know the intention of the user, I'm irritated by the crudity of it. If I'm in a discussion and people use those terms it irritates me, and if I'm irritated I'm not going to be kind and gentle when I respond.

So please, lets just put the violin away.


This too is a lie because a number of people told you to get on with it and stop prevaricating. Scroll back and see.


LOL Fade and the guy I've never seen before? Quite a cacophany.


Yet another attempt to change the subject. The topic here is body disposal rates at Auschwitz-Birkenau.


A couple of quotes ago it was gas chambers. :p

The topic changes depending on what you're comfortable talking about. I've answered BOTH topics.


The body disposal rates are inextricably bound up with the gas chamber claims because the witness statements under review are all describing the process of gassing and burning.


What are you talking about? Nyiszli, in the quote from Pressac I gave, is talking about SHOOTINGS and incinerations in an open pit. The rest of the processed would be headed to a gas chamber, and their remains would have been incinerated in the ovens. So we have SEPERATE methods of slaughter for which different types of incinerations were devised, atleast in this instance.

Burning also included those who died of starvation, overwork, and disease. So NO, you're wrong. There is not necessarily a correlation between disposal and gassing. A thousand people can be gassed, four hundred can die of typhus and dyssentary, nine hundred can be shot, and another twelve hundred can die of hunger and overwork. And all can be burned on the same day.


You are truly desperate.


LOL Hardly.


What credibility?


:rolleyes: I'm not the one posting doctored quotes. :p


Of course they are empirical because they could only be answered empirically!


I notice that Renk doesn't even PRETEND to have empirical evidence that witnesses are lying.


I wonder if you noticed the question immediately preceding the extract above:
Were [I]you[/I] aware of that (I guess so as you claim above to be an expert on the Holocaust[B]: “as a fellow who knows and understands the facts of the Holocaust, am pretty well staked out on this issue”[/B]), and if so would you agree with me, as someone who champions fair play, (quote; [B]“Do we all not have a sense of fair play[/B]”) that the whole Soviet report should be set aside as unreliable coming as it does from the pens of know fabricators?


No, the whole Soviet report should NOT be set aside. Simply because some things in the report are false does not mean ALL things are false. It does mean that Western historians should be careful in USING the Soviet report.

Which is irrelevant, since they already ARE careful in using Soviet sources. The fact is, however, that Soviet methodology and private communications regarding the Holocaust and their views on it were opened after the fall of the USSR. Thats HOW we know who the figures they cite for Auschwitz are supposed to be.

The Germans were also known fabricators. That doesn't mean historians reject German accounts regarding Katyn.

Katyn is actually a PERFECT example, though you dislike it. The Soviets tried to blame the Germans for what they had done (Though the Allies dropped the charge in the course of the Nuremberg trial). Thats true. However, with the fall of the Soviet Union, ALL of the events surrounding that incident came out of the Soviet archives.

Not just the Soviet effort to blame Germany, but also POLISH accounts and evidence after years of secret investigation.

It wasn't until 1990 that Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev admitted Soviet involvement in the Katyn forest massacre. Two years later, the Russian government handed over to Polish President Lech Walesa previously secret documents showing that Soviet leader Joseph Stalin had directly ordered the killing of the Polish army officers.

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war/episodes/01/spotlight/

No such evidence came forth for the 'fabrication' of the Holocaust after the fall of the USSR. In fact, why would the Russians 'fabricate' the Holocaust in any case?

The whole issue was complicated by the [u]refusal of the Soviet authorities to accept that anti-Jewish atrocities were anything other than a part of the general campaign of murder and terror practiced by the Nazi regime.[/u]This left the onus of proof on the Western Allies, but the main sites of the genocide on Soviet-controlled territory in the east.

--Interrogations: The Nazi Elite in Allied Hands, 1945
Richard Overy

The Soviets have no DESIRE to 'invent' Jewish losses. They happened anyway. And to deal with that inconvenience, the Soviets rolled Jewish losses into the same group as ALL peoples killed in the East.


What is wrong with those questions?


They're rather insipid.


They are perfectly reasonable


Hardly.


when you are faced with often wildly contradictory testimonies.


They're people, some of whom are relating what happened to them 34 years in the past. To be quite frank, its not only dishonest, its STUPID to suggest that a witness who existed as essentially a SLAVE working a machine should know the exact capacity of that machine in burning human bodies in a single day after 34 years.


In fact they are the only questions because when it boils down to it, your precious gas chamber story rests on witness statements.


Or the fact that the people who USED the gas chambers admitted it. Or the fact that there are traces of the poisons on the sites. Or the fact that we have the documents for their construction and their use.


Without them, all other evidence is purely circumstantial and can be explained without recourse to extermination fantasies.


Except, of course, for all the dead people. :rolleyes:


It is to do with the penchant for gas chamber defender's quick resort to the ad hominem.


Please.....come off the cross.


Except that your question in the form in which it was put extended to everything about Renk and about "the Holocaust", in other words you are trying to muddy the waters by extending the discussion in all directions.


Watch this:

I agree with Browning in this exchange and agree with his FACTS regarding the Holocaust.


I never said anything of the kind. Once again you lie.


Renk: I do not question the fact that millions of Jews were murdered in
the Holocaust.

Basil Fawlty: I agree with Renk in this exchange.


This is what I said at the opening of the last reply: Where does it say that I believe that "the Holocaust happened"?


Renk: I do not question the fact that millions of Jews were murdered in
the Holocaust.

Basil Fawlty: I agree with Renk in this exchange.


Here is the question: “[B]what amount of credibility should we ascribe to
the testimonies which corroborate the discredited Soviet reports . . .”[/B]


As much as we can corroborate with other methods and sources.


to which we still await an answer.


You've been answered. In detail.

Your move.

[Basil Fawlty]

Renk: I do not question the fact that millions of Jews were murdered in
the Holocaust.

O'Reilly: I agree with Renk in that exchange
Very weak indeed.

Let's repost the quote in full:

I do not question [herein] the fact that millions of Jews were murdered in the Holocaust.This is a tactical move. Renk is saying that he not questioning in this exchange "the fact etc" That is what 'herein' means.

I will return to the rest of your post in due course.

[cerberus]

Renk is saying that he not questioning in this exchange "the fact etc" That is what 'herein' means

I find this weak in itself , how can Renk pick and choose when ( or in what exchange) millions died in the Holocaust , they either died or they did not die.
"In this exchange " is meaningless.

Renk was not genuine in his "exchange" with Browning all the way down the line.

When Renk was speaking at "Real History"* was he not using his exchange with Browning as a tool to " expose" Browning as being "afraid" to debate what Renk believes to be the truth - that millions did not die.
Renk was not agreeing here* that "millions died in the Holocaust" , nor did he say that he only agreeded "herein" to that fact.
They either died or they did not die , " herein" is not up for debate.
His use of the correspondence , does betray part of his motive.

I found 9 mentions of Renk on "Google" all tied to "IHR" / "Real History".
It does illustrate how much they operate within their own orbit - it is not unlike the two links on "Dr. Anti Christs" posts .:)

The revisionist use of evidence is also interesting both what they are prepared to print , what they are prepared to omit and what they do not answer.
Leucher and Rudolf are still presented as being "ground breaking" , both have been discredited.
"The Diary of Anne Frank is a fraud" , even though the Dutch National Archives had the papers examined and found them to be genuine.
There is no explaination of where all those who died went.
At best we are to believe that they died of natural causes and indriectly from the actions of the Allies.
Renk's motives are like those of the revisionist school , questionble.
Increasingly the word "scholarly" is being thrown into the description of their works , I sense a desire to (at a superficial level at least) to establish a venere of respect and authority.
One site describes their content as a "tool for students and teachers" (now that does push the boat more than a little.:rofl:).

[Sulla the Dictator]

Very weak indeed.

Let's repost the quote in full:

This is a tactical move. Renk is saying that he not questioning in this exchange "the fact etc" That is what 'herein' means.

I will return to the rest of your post in due course.

Actually, you're right in that I quoted that as a tactic. Unfortunately, you misjudged the nature of the tactic.

I quoted Renk in his actual exchange.

Holocaust deniers, ladies and gentlemen, actually DOCTOR the words of other Holocaust Deniers!

Here is the quote that O'Reilly posted:

I do not question [herein] the fact that millions of Jews were murdered in the Holocaust.

And here is the link for O'Reilly's quote:

http://revforum.yourforum.org/viewto...=renk+browning

The ACTUAL exchange:

Christopher Browning: The State of the Evidence For the "Final Solution"
By Brian A. Renk

(Lecture presentation at the Conference on Real History,
Cincinnati, Ohio, September 26, 1999)

...I do not question the fact that millions of Jews were murdered in the Holocaust.

http://www.codoh.com/gcgv/gcgvbrowning.html

Doctored. Doctored because the reading audience wouldn't be comfortable with Renk's statement.

So yes, I'll admit I was saving that bit for the counterpunch. :D

Now, how can there be any real debate about the 'points' O'Reilly posted when the guys who gave him this little piece can't even be trusted to avoid doctoring people who AGREE with them?

[Basil Fawlty]

Actually, you're right in that I quoted that as a tactic. Unfortunately, you misjudged the nature of the tactic.

I quoted Renk in his actual exchange.

Holocaust deniers, ladies and gentlemen, actually DOCTOR the words of other Holocaust Deniers!

Here is the quote that O'Reilly posted:

I do not question [herein] the fact that millions of Jews were murdered in the Holocaust.

And here is the link for O'Reilly's quote:

http://revforum.yourforum.org/viewto...=renk+browning

The ACTUAL exchange:

Christopher Browning: The State of the Evidence For the "Final Solution"
By Brian A. Renk

(Lecture presentation at the Conference on Real History,
Cincinnati, Ohio, September 26, 1999)

...I do not question the fact that millions of Jews were murdered in the Holocaust.

http://www.codoh.com/gcgv/gcgvbrowning.html

Doctored. Doctored because the reading audience wouldn't be comfortable with Renk's statement.

So yes, I'll admit I was saving that bit for the counterpunch. :D

Now, how can there be any real debate about the 'points' O'Reilly posted when the guys who gave him this little piece can't even be trusted to avoid doctoring people who AGREE with them?No one 'gave me' anything. I copied the exchange from the Rev forum as it stands. That version is the one we have been discussing. In order to sustaiin the charge of 'doctoring' then the onus is on you to show that Renk did not author the [herein]. It is possible - and even likely - that he omitted the 'herein' for Browning but added it in for publication hence the square brackets.

If it is really the case that Renk genuinely does not dispute that millions of Jews were murdered in the so-called Holocaust then he and I part company on that point. I do dispute that millions of Jews were murdered. Anyway, you know that Sulla, this is all just a smokescreen..

[cerberus]

So , if these people did not die where did they go ?
If they were not murdered why all the paper work and message which detail a body out count from the ez gruppen ?
Why did all those people sit in a birch wood around a morgue ?
Did everyone tell lies , and if so how was this mass fabrication accomplished ? ( And did the SS guards agree with the Jews and other prisoners on what to say. ?)
I have to ask this as I have just bought and watched the BBC DVD on Auschwitz and I just can't see how the two SS men interviewed managed to get their acounts so in line with the prisoners. Now one of these gents was less than apologetic , an ex gruppen member who described how he shot men women and children).
So many people so many different nationalities , from so many different places , who schooled them ?:confused: :confused: :confused: :confused:

[Sulla the Dictator]

No one 'gave me' anything. I copied the exchange from the Rev forum as it stands.


And you acknowledge they doctored it.


That version is the one we have been discussing.


The doctored version.


In order to sustaiin the charge of 'doctoring' then the onus is on you to show that Renk did not author the [herein].


Well I posted the version he authored, while you posted a version transcribed by someone else. So I have proved it. Moreover, I did a search with your phrase, and found about six hits, ONLY Bulletin boards, where [herein] was mentioned.


It is possible - and even likely - that he omitted the 'herein' for Browning but added it in for publication hence the square brackets.


LOL If thats true, even you have to find that unethical.


If it is really the case that Renk genuinely does not dispute that millions of Jews were murdered in the so-called Holocaust then he and I part company on that point.


Then we go back to my earlier point. How can you have a legitimate historical view when you only pick and choose from historians what you WANT to accept?

Thats not realistic.


I do dispute that millions of Jews were murdered.


Of course you do. It is your way of hurting/slandering/attacking Jews.


Anyway, you know that Sulla, this is all just a smokescreen..

Rubbish. If I had produced a doctored exchange between a Holocaust denier and a historian you would be up in arms.

I'm less surprised because its really par for course.

[Basil Fawlty]

And you acknowledge they doctored it.No I didn't. That is your allegation. In order to prove that it is 'doctored' (in the ordinary sense of the word in this context) you would have to show that Renk did not approve of the insertion of [herein]. You have not done that.
The doctored version.No, the version here with [herein] in it.
Well I posted the version he authored, while you posted a version transcribed by someone else.No, you have yet to prove that. So I have proved it. No you haven't. All you have proved is that there are two versions of that text; one with [herein] and one without. Furthermore I really don't see the significance of it for us. Moreover, I did a search with your phrase, and found about six hits, ONLY Bulletin boards, where [herein] was mentioned.So what? Have you found proof that Renk has not approved of that text?
LOL If thats true, even you have to find that unethical. Why?

In view of the fact that any questioning of the sacred dogmas of the holocaust story will land you in jail in most countries in Europe in addition to persecution and demonisation, then anyone respecting truth and free inquiry may have to resort to "guerilla tactics" ocassionally. If that means drawing a court historian into a discussion he would otherwise categorically refuse then I think that such tactics are, under such extreme conditions, somewhat justified.

As an analogy, let us consider the Iraqi resistance. If they were to openly confront the occupation forces they would be vaporised in an airstrike. But the fight must go on, hence the sniper and the roadside bomb. This is the situation faced by the "evil deniers" (spiritual cousins to the "evil terrorists" in Iraq no doubt). Robert Faurisson got his face smashed in by Jewish thugs in Paris, Zundel was sent a parcel bomb, Rudolf is in prison, as is Zundel and Irving and other lesser known figures. Every year the Verfassungsschutz (thought police)of the US-installed BRD brings c. 10,000 prosecutions for non-violent political offences (check it up, their annual report is online).

And you like to quibble over Renk's rather cunning ploy to show Browning the error of his ways by relying on these "witnesses" for anything except lies.

Why don't you write to Renk and ask him about this point? I heard from one of your colleagues that he is very prompt in replying to such inquiries.

Would you like to go on record here as condemning those repressive laws that imprison anyone who engages in holocaust revisionism or 'denial' if you prefer?

Then we go back to my earlier point. How can you have a legitimate historical view when you only pick and choose from historians what you WANT to accept?That's a very idiotic question. If one is serious about this topic, i.e. serious about getting to the bottom of it, then one looks at the primary sources and both sides of the story. I came to the views that I hold primarily through studying the primary sources and looking at how court historians handle such evidence. Revisionists helped me from reinventing the wheel in many cases.
Of course you do. It is your way of hurting/slandering/attacking Jews.That's pathetic and revealing at the same time.

Seeing as you would like to talk about hurting slandering and attacking. You are awful concerned about Jewish sensibilities (and I don't doubt that the majority of Jews sincerely believe in the Holocaust story as presented) but have you ever thought for a moment: what if revisionists are right? Then consider the hurt and slander involved in daubbing a nation as murderers - a blood libel - who have to pay through the nose till the end of time (it seems). But that doesn't matter, does it? Only Jewish sensibilities are of any worth it seems.

Rubbish. If I had produced a doctored exchange between a Holocaust denier and a historian you would be up in arms. Well you did produce some doctored evidence once, and when I asked you to substantiate the autheniticity of the document you cited Hilberg and a fellow who works for the Office of Special Investigations. You abandoned that part of the exchange when I produced the words of a federal judge who named that fellow (along with others) as a falsifier of evidence. Do you remember? It was over the Jaeger Report.

[Sulla the Dictator]

No I didn't. That is your allegation.


Its true.


In order to prove that it is 'doctored' (in the ordinary sense of the word in this context) you would have to show that Renk did not approve of the insertion of [herein].


Incorrrect. Thats asking me to prove a negative. Logic proves me right. Your source, and all similar sources, come from third parties (I'm sure you've tried the search yourself at this point).

The source I cited comes from a major Holocaust Denier website, with the byline "By Brian Renk".


You have not done that.


I sure have. Read above.


No, the version here with [herein] in it.


Thats the doctored version. You'll notice, by the way, that your source doesn't give a link to the place where he got it.

I invite you to ask him about this discrepancy.


No, you have yet to prove that. No you haven't. All you have proved is that there are two versions of that text; one with [herein] and one without.


...And I have shown that your version comes from a bulletin board post, while my version comes from an article "By Brian Renk".


Furthermore I really don't see the significance of it for us. So what?


It underlines my point that Holocaust Denial is a disreputable hobby of pseudo-science. Its the opposite of scholarship. Its dishonest.

Why did someone doctor that?


Have you found proof that Renk has not approved of that text?


Its my job to prove he DIDN'T approve?

I proved that the version he WROTE doesn't have that proviso.


Why?


You mean 'why is it dishonest to ADD things to a supposed rendition of an exact conversation'?


In view of the fact that any questioning of the sacred dogmas of the holocaust story will land you in jail in most countries in Europe in addition to persecution and demonisation, then anyone respecting truth and free inquiry may have to resort to "guerilla tactics" ocassionally.


Thats irrelevant to an e-mail conversation in the United States. LOL Its good to see how Holocaust Deniers rationalize lying. Pressac actually mentions Faurisson's tactics for lying when he would encounter evidence of gas chambers he couldn't explain away.


If that means drawing a court historian into a discussion he would otherwise categorically refuse then I think that such tactics are, under such extreme conditions, somewhat justified.


Ah. I see. Well then, its good to see that Holocaust Deniers who expect to be respected will LIE AND CHEAT their way into the light of academic esteem. :rofl:

"Historians don't take us seriously as revisionists. Therefore we must LIE about our positions and then doctor our records for them to treat us as equals!"


As an analogy, let us consider the Iraqi resistance. If they were to openly confront the occupation forces they would be vaporised in an airstrike.

But the fight must go on, hence the sniper and the roadside bomb. This is the situation faced by the "evil deniers" (spiritual cousins to the "evil terrorists" in Iraq no doubt).


LOL You are spiritual cousins in that you're both zealots adhering to an extremist version of faith. Thats about the extent of your relationship.

I've rarely seen such a BIZARRE dillusion as one which compares people who create websites saying "There isn't enough cyanide trace to verify a gas chamber here, those kike witnesses are liars and the Germans were tortured yada yada" to people who KILL people.

You aren't 'snipers', resistance fighters, or any other such rubbish. You're hobbyist anti-semites. You're probably as racist as Iraqi terrorists, but its nonsense to suggest you're as dangerous.

To anyone. Or anything.

BTW, I haven't seen Iraqi terrorists "make up" an attack in order to prove their vitality. :p


Robert Faurisson got his face smashed in by Jewish thugs in Paris, Zundel was sent a parcel bomb, Rudolf is in prison, as is Zundel and Irving and other lesser known figures. Every year the Verfassungsschutz (thought police)of the US-installed BRD brings c. 10,000 prosecutions for non-violent political offences (check it up, their annual report is online).


I don't care. These things have nothing to do with this e-mail Conversation.


And you like to quibble over Renk's rather cunning ploy to show Browing the error of his ways by relying on these "witnesses" for anything except lies.


It was cunning to lie about his position? I suppose it CAN be cunning to lie. But the purpose of cunning through lying is to TRICK people, not to PROVE something.

Here we have a debate where O'Reilly suggests its valid for HIS SIDE to lie about what they believe in, while the other side is to sit and answer a barrage of questions.

Thats not a debate, thats an interrogation. LOL Why should anyone respect a field of liars?


Why don;t you write to Renk and ask him about this point? I heard from one of your colleagues that he is very prompt in replying to such inquiries.


Whats his e-mail? Who are my colleagues?


Would you like to go on record here as condemning those repressive laws that imprison anyone who engages in holocaust revisionism or 'denial' if you prefer?


I think many European laws are ridiculous. But thats none of my business, it has nothing to do with me. I live in the United States, where there are no such laws, and Holocaust Denial is considered a laughingstock.


That's a very idiotic question.


We'll assume that you're being a super resistance 'sniper' here, and just lying about my question. :p


If one is serious about this topic, i.e. serious about getting to the bottom of it, then one looks at the primary sources and both sides of the story.


THERE IS ONE SIDE OF THE ISSUE. It happened. I've already GOTTEN TO THE BOTTOM of this topic. We're trying to help YOU get there.

And you're struggling against the process of learning by arguing in favor of LYING.

Think about that for a moment. :nono:


I came to the views that I hold primarily through studying the primary sources and looking at how court historians handle such evidence.


I actually doubt that. I suspect you were a white supremacist already or sympathetic to their views and your "Holocaust denial" evolved, coincidentally, with your dislike of Jews.


That's pathetic and revealing at the same time.


Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. However, it can't be that pathetic since I'm not arguing in favor of lying in academic debate.


Seeing as you would like to talk about hurting slandering and attacking. You are awful concerned about Jewish sensibilities (and I don't doubt that the majority of Jews sincerely believe in the Holocaust story as presented) but have you ever thought for a moment: what if revisionists are right?


They're not. By the way, how big is the minority of Jews who DO NOT believe the Holocaust happened? This must be the secret minority which keeps the history of the Holocaust in place, right?


Then consider the hurt and slander involved in daubbing a nation as murderers - a blood libel - who have to pay through the nose till the end of time (it seems).

But that doesn't matter, does it? Only Jewish sensibilities are of any worth it seems.


Well, lets see. Do you deny the Germans slaughtered, starved, and worked to death millions of Soviet prisoners of war? Do you deny that the Germans murdered millions of Poles? Do you deny the excesses of anti-partisan SS units? Do you deny that foreign SS members acting as German garrisons killed hundreds of thousands of Serbs?

Do you deny that the SS and the Wehrmacht were responsible for the deaths fo millions of Russian civilians? Do you deny that the Einsatzgruppen SHOT a little over a million Jews?

Or do you just deny that a portion of what we know to be German atrocities are false.

Blood libel. :rolleyes:


Well you did produce some doctored evidence once, and when I asked you to substantiate the autheniticity of the document you cited Hilberg and a fellow who works for the Office of Special Investigations. You abandoned that part of the exchange when I produced the words of a federal judge who named that fellow (along with others) as a falsifier of evidence. Do you remember? It was over the Jaeger Report.

These are lies. I'm not surprised, since its a tactic you endorse, but the audience shouldn't be fooled in light of your admission.

[A. Radek]

It underlines my point that Holocaust Denial is a disreputable hobby of pseudo-science. Its the opposite of scholarship. Its dishonest.

Indeed it is. They are not 'revisionists' by any stretch of imagination, either; that word gives them an aura of scholarly legitimacy they don't in any way earn.

[A. Radek]

So , if these people did not die where did they go ?
If they were not murdered why all the paper work and message which detail a body out count from the ez gruppen ?
Why did all those people sit in a birch wood around a morgue ?
Did everyone tell lies , and if so how was this mass fabrication accomplished ? ( And did the SS guards agree with the Jews and other prisoners on what to say. ?)
I have to ask this as I have just bought and watched the BBC DVD on Auschwitz and I just can't see how the two SS men interviewed managed to get their acounts so in line with the prisoners. Now one of these gents was less than apologetic , an ex gruppen member who described how he shot men women and children).
So many people so many different nationalities , from so many different places , who schooled them ?:confused: :confused: :confused: :confused:


It's simple, The Jews organized all of it while in the camps. They managed to insert 10's of thousands of pages of forged documents in place all before the Nuremburg trials, and during the last 60 odd years as well. Surely you know 'Da Joos' are an evil, magical race of diabolical masterminds and perfectly capable of pulling all this off.

[Basil Fawlty]

I actually doubt that. I suspect you were a white supremacist already or sympathetic to their views and your "Holocaust denial" evolved, coincidentally, with your dislike of Jews.I am not a white supremacist as anyone who knows me will readily affirm. In fact not only am I not a white supremacist, I am not even a white nationalist! In fact I am hostile to both ideologies. :222:

This is a sign of your woeful bad judgement that you come up with such silliness.


I'll come back to the rest of the post later.

[cerberus]

It's simple, The Jews organized all of it while in the camps. They managed to insert 10's of thousands of pages of forged documents in place all before the Nuremburg trials, and during the last 60 odd years as well. Surely you know 'Da Joos' are an evil, magical race of diabolical masterminds and perfectly capable of pulling all this off.
Off course , and depending on your location between 1939-45 you would recieve a uniquely detailed set of notes to learn and destroy so you could plead your case as a genuine holocaust surivor.:rolleyes:
That must be what about 50,000,000 sets of notes to distribute as there are more claiments than there were surivors, forgive - there's no such thing as a surivor as no one actually died.:rolleyes:
Since all the Jews went to the middle east , the post man must have been very busy in that region.

[A. Radek]

Yes. Now you have it. It takes 'scholarship' and and a brave bunch of 'Culture Warriors' like Basil here to stand up for The Truth, even if it means lying. The fact that serious scholars and academics just laugh at the stupidity of Denial is also a clear sign of a Jewish conspiracy to silence these great detectives. After all, what are they hiding?

[Sulla the Dictator]

Yes. Now you have it. It takes 'scholarship' and and a brave bunch of 'Culture Warriors' like Basil here to stand up for The Truth, even if it means lying.


Indeed. As we have seen from the self-portrait of allegorical PARTISAN WARFARE, its even BRAVE to lie in an e-mail. :p

But then again, we don't know if Renk actually lied. Its possible that O'Reilly's friend and fearless leader, Hannover simply doctored the transcript.

Of course, if Renk is responsible he not only lied to Browning, he DOCTORED the conversation with him. :p

Who knows what else he might have added or removed to further titilate his audience?

[A. Radek]

But then again, we don't know if Renk actually lied. Its possible that O'Reilly's friend and fearless leader, Hannover simply doctored the transcript.

True, but utterly irrelevant to Deniers, as we know. It's 'Da Cause' that's important ...

On another board, one of the clowns actually claimed Jurgen Graf 'wrote a book that utterly refutes Arad's book on the Operation Reinhard camps'. A page of posts later, of course, after being called on it, he finally admits Graf just co-authored a chapter of a piece of tripe with the world reknowned 'scholar and historian'(snicker) Carlos Mottogno, and we should 'move on to discussing Hilberg's falsifications'.

Typical ploy; all they are doing is advertising. It's not like most people are stupid enough to go out and actually buy gibberish published by Nazi owned publishing houses.

[Sulla the Dictator]

Hey O'Reilly, why don't you simpy ask Hannover for the link he got his post from?

[Basil Fawlty]

Hey O'Reilly, why don't you simpy ask Hannover for the link he got his post from?Why don't you? Better still why don't you write to Renk?

Why are you ignoring my response to your latest slur?

[Sulla the Dictator]

Why don't you? Better still why don't you write to Renk?

Why are you ignoring my response to your latest slur?

Its easier, faster, and incumbant for you to ask your source.

THATS a bulletin board. Furthermore, I don't have Renk's email address. I mean, you're the one who posted the doctored quote in question. And thats the board that you hang out at.

EDIT: I'm ignoring your response because I doubt its true. In previous incarnations of the Phora I've seen you say some pretty racially charged things.

[Basil Fawlty]

Its easier, faster, and incumbant for you to ask your source.Its not incumbent on me because I have not made the doctoring allegation. That could be cleared up with a simple note to Renk and you would prove or not prove your contention.

EDIT: I'm ignoring your response because I doubt its true. In previous incarnations of the Phora I've seen you say some pretty racially charged things.Further evidence that you are a bare faced liar.

You should withdraw that remark before it gets any more embarassing for you.

[cerberus]

Having read and looked at that board its a little like having a group of paranoid persons in a group discussion when they suddently find they all share a common delusion.
I now know Reinhold that your "open mind" is about as closed as they come.

[Sulla the Dictator]

Its not incumbent on me because I have not made the doctoring allegation. That could be cleared up with a simple note to Renk and you would prove or not prove your contention.


I repeat: I don't have his E-MAIL address.

Its nice to see that not only is it my responsibility to expose your doctored post, but also to ask WHY they doctored it.

I wonder why Holocaust Denial is considered on par with UFO fanatics in the Academic community. :rolleyes:

Though I think O'Reilly's trying to be cute here. I've no doubt he's already PMed Hannover about it. He'll 'come up' with an explanation after Hannover gives it to him in his PM box.


Further evidence that you are a bare faced liar.


This is actually why I ignored your statement. You're trying to distract from the debate we're currently having. You don't want to talk about your doctored post.

Though I'll give you this opportunity to denounce racism and anti-semitism. Please, by all means, do so.

[Sulla the Dictator]

I guess Hannover has until I have my account activated over there to re-doctor his quote.

Its interesting that O'Reilly suggests this is even debatable when ALL of the sources for his version of the quote come from Bulletin Boards while my source comes from an article written by Brian Renk.

Something he conveniently ignored when trying to change the subject to his racial politics.

[Basil Fawlty]

I repeat: I don't have his E-MAIL address.That didn't stop your colleague (another online holocaust defender). I'm sure a resourceful guy like you can get it.

Its nice to see that not only is it my responsibility to expose your doctored post, but also to ask WHY they doctored it.
Yiou have not proved it was 'doctored' only that [herein] appears in one version. To show that it is doctored you have to prove that Renk did not authorise it - which is why I suggested writing to him.

Though I think O'Reilly's trying to be cute here. I've no doubt he's already PMed Hannover about it. He'll 'come up' with an explanation after Hannover gives it to him in his PM box.
Speculative lies. I have never had a directcommunciation with that gentleman now or in the past.


This is actually why I ignored your statement. You're trying to distract from the debate we're currently having. You don't want to talk about your doctored post.You slander someone then run from the consequences. Its about time you admitted your mistake there and withdraw that slur.

Though I'll give you this opportunity to denounce racism and anti-semitism. Please, by all means, do so.You slanderously accused me of white supremacism. You must withdraw that remark.

[Basil Fawlty]

Something he conveniently ignored when trying to change the subject to his racial politics.You slandered me with that white supremacist crap. I don't have racial politics.

I don't mind the 'holocaust denier' stuff, that's part of that game, but now you are way out of line.

Withdraw that slander.

[Basil Fawlty]

I will be addressing this post (http://thephora.net/forum/showpost.php?p=36086&postcount=71) in due course (next few days), I don't have the time at the moment.

[Sulla the Dictator]

You slandered me with that white supremacist crap. I don't have racial politics.

I don't mind the 'holocaust denier' stuff, that's part of that game, but now you are way out of line.

Withdraw that slander.

Glad to. Denounce racism and anti-semitism and I'll be the first one to say you're not a white supremacist.

[Basil Fawlty]

Glad to. Denounce racism and anti-semitism and I'll be the first one to say you're not a white supremacist.There are three different issues here. I have already told you not only am I not supportive of but that I am hostile to white supremacism (or any race or ethno-supremacism for that matter), white nationalism (an oxymoron surely. There being no such thing as the 'white nation'). White supremacism and WNism is pretty much an American, or at least Anglo-Saxon phenomenon and is completely irrelevant to us Europeans. It is an ideology for deracinated European-Americans. Considering the attitudes of WN's towards the ethnic group of which I am a member it would be quite impossible for me to be such!

The problem here - and we really should put this to another thread - is that the terms antisemitism and racism are notoriously slippery concepts. You would do better to define what you mean by these terms for I am quite sure we have a different understanding of what is involved.

Meanwhile I urge you yet again to withdraw your slander.

[Sulla the Dictator]

There are three different issues here. I have already told you not only am I not supportive of but that I am hostile to white supremacism (or any race or ethno-supremacism for that matter), white nationalism (an oxymoron surely. There being no such thing as the 'white nation'). White supremacism and WNism is pretty much an American, or at least Anglo-Saxon phenomenon and is completely irrelevant to us Europeans. It is an ideology for deracinated European-Americans. Considering the attitudes of WN's towards the ethnic group of which I am a member it would be quite impossible for me to be such!

The problem here - and we really should put this to another thread - is that the terms antisemitism and racism are notoriously slippery concepts. You would do better to define what you mean by these terms for I am quite sure we have a different understanding of what is involved.

Meanwhile I urge you yet again to withdraw your slander.


rac·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (rszm)
n.
The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
Discrimination or prejudice based on race.

2 entries found for anti-semitism.
an·ti-Sem·i·tism (nt-sm-tzm, nt-)
n.
Hostility toward or prejudice against Jews or Judaism.
Discrimination against Jews.

Denounce them. Whats the problem?

[Sulla the Dictator]

Now the topic has turned to O'Reilly's view on race. O'Reilly, link us to a non-Bulletin board source for your version of the quote please.

[Basil Fawlty]

rac·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (rszm)
n.
The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
Discrimination or prejudice based on race.

2 entries found for anti-semitism.
an·ti-Sem·i·tism (nt-sm-tzm, nt-)
n.
Hostility toward or prejudice against Jews or Judaism.
Discrimination against Jews.

Denounce them. Whats the problem?I have indicated the slander already, I am not a "white supremacist", its down to you to withdraw it. This is not the Moscow Show Trials were people read prepared statements.

Now withdraw it.

[Sulla the Dictator]

I have indicated the slander already, I am not a "white supremacist", its down to you to withdraw it.


I'll happily withdraw it: After you denounce racism and anti-semitism.

Whats so difficult about this?

[Sulla the Dictator]

Now the topic has turned to O'Reilly's view on race. O'Reilly, link us to a non-Bulletin board source for your version of the quote please.

....:argue:....

[Basil Fawlty]

I'll happily withdraw it: After you denounce racism and anti-semitism.

Whats so difficult about this?The difficulty is that you have accused me of being a white supremacist. I deny this in the strongest possible terms.

Therefore you are a slanderer.
Wihtdraw the slander.

[Sulla the Dictator]

The difficulty is that you have accused me of being a white supremacist. I deny this in the strongest possible terms.


Ok. So then let me understand this. You DO believe in racism, you DO believe in anti-semitism, but I have wronged you by calling you a white supremacist?

Is that where we're at?

[Basil Fawlty]

Ok. So then let me understand this. You DO believe in racism, you DO believe in anti-semitism, but I have wronged you by calling you a white supremacist?I have already clarified this: I do not accept any ideology that posits one race or ethnicity as being superior to another (a defining tenet of WSism I presume), therefore I cannot possibly be such.
Is that where we're at?Where we are at is yet another tiresome display of your mischief.

[Sulla the Dictator]

I have already clarified this: I do not accept any ideology that posits one race or ethnicity as being superior to another (a tenet of WSism I presume).


I see. So my question is: 1. Do you have a dislike for Jews?

2. Do you believe all races and ethnicities are of equal value?

Excuse my caution. I've seen similar positions as this one, where people on this board and others claim they're not racists because they say things like "Blacks run faster than whites, while whites have greater mental capacities. Each race has its own talents."

You're not one of those types, correct?

[Basil Fawlty]

I see. So my question is: 1. Do you have a dislike for Jews?

2. Do you believe all races and ethnicities are of equal value?

Excuse my caution. I've seen similar positions as this one, where people on this board and others claim they're not racists because they say things like "Blacks run faster than whites, while whites have greater mental capacities. Each race has its own talents."

You're not one of those types, correct?Now you are shifting the terms.

The accusation was that I am a white supremacist. This is completely false. But instead of doing the decent thing and withdrawing the slander you now want to shift things onto more general questions like racism.

Your definition seems to have moved from a belief in racial superiority (an odious doctrine in my view) to one of difference, an altogether more nebulous and slippery concept.

I would agree with you that a statement like this "Blacks run faster than whites, while whites have greater mental capacities. Each race has its own talents." contains a WS premiss and so professes a theory of racial superiority. Although the second sentence "Each race has its own talents" does not entail the first sentence.

First things first. You just withdraw that slanderous lie (WS) and then we can discuss these other questions (if you like and in another thread).

[Sulla the Dictator]

First things first. You just withdraw that slanderous lie (WS) and then we can discuss these other questions (if you like and in another thread).

Very well. Due to my lack of evidence in this regard (After a search of your posts, and because of the collapse of the last board), I'll retract my statement that you are a white supremacist for the time being. Perhaps we'll revisit this once you post more in non-Holocaust, non-Irish topics.

[cerberus]

holocaust defender

I know this may be lost on those outside of Ireland but I do think that "Holocaust defender" might be a name for a loyalist flute band.:rofl:
That is pretty good Reinhold , keep them coming.;)

That you are antisemetic Reinhold it does follow that you hold racist views, the race which you are hostile towards are the Jews.
This does colour your views on the Holocaust and it does influence your judgement.

I recall that in a previous "H" discussion you told me that humility was good for the soul to see Austrian Jews on their knees scrubbing the streets was pretty reasonable.
You also saw nothing wrong with "blood and honor laws" and the "resettlement in the east" of Jews.
The "recycling" of their property and money ( I called it theft on a grand scale) you had no issues with this.
All in all you do seem to hold very definate racist views towards the Jews.

[Basil Fawlty]

Very well. Due to my lack of evidence in this regard (After a search of your posts, and because of the collapse of the last board), I'll retract my statement that you are a white supremacist for the time being. Perhaps we'll revisit this once you post more in non-Holocaust, non-Irish topics.Very good.
Grudging a retraction as it is, it does restore our otherwise excellent relations!
:rolleyes:

[A. Radek]

Yiou have not proved it was 'doctored' only that [herein] appears in one version. To show that it is doctored you have to prove that Renk did not authorise it - which is why I suggested writing to him.

You didn't bother to just cite the actual 'lecture', and instead chose to just cut and paste a board message, and after some 11 pages of a topic you yourself started, and claimed to be 'of great significance', you admit You just parroted some post you read somewhere on another board instead of verifying it, a simple task to say the least. And yet, you have no problem calling legitimate historians liars and 'proven falsifiers' ...

I guess Hannover has until I have my account activated over there to re-doctor his quote.

Its interesting that O'Reilly suggests this is even debatable when ALL of the sources for his version of the quote come from Bulletin Boards while my source comes from an article written by Brian Renk.

Something he conveniently ignored when trying to change the subject to his racial politics.

He can doctor all he wants; I'm sure I'm not the only one who has saved the page you linked to.

And congratulations on proving good old Basil here a total fraud and fake,yet again. You'd think his technique would improve after so many times, but he obviously has a learning disability.

[Basil Fawlty]

I know this may be lost on those outside of Ireland but I do think that "Holocaust defender" might be a name for a loyalist flute band.:rofl: Haha, never heard of them.
That is pretty good Reinhold , keep them coming.;) I will endeavour.

That you are antisemetic Reinhold it does follow that you hold racist views, the race which you are hostile towards are the Jews.No. If antisemitism means hatred of Jews simply for being Jews then no I am not. I am opposed to Talmudic Judaism however for the same reason I am opposed to white supremacism.
This does colour your views on the Holocaust and it does influence your judgement.You are getting the chicken and the egg mixed up here.

I recall that in a previous "H" discussion you told me that humility was good for the soul to see Austrian Jews on their knees scrubbing the streets was pretty reasonable.I remember saying that alright. I seem to remember the context being your endless and puerile trolling. :rolleyes:
You also saw nothing wrong with "blood and honor laws" and the "resettlement in the east" of Jews.I don't think so. I argued that rettlement in the east was the real meaning of 'Endlossung' (a view supported by the text of the Wannsee Conference). Btw, removing Jews from Europe was the professed goal of Theodore Herzl and the Zionist movement - was he an antisemite?

I am not even opposed to Zionism as such, just the Zionism that is based on expropriation of other people, i.e. the Palestinians.

I tend to think the President of Iran has a good point. If Europeans insist on believing in the Holocaust then they should apportion enough land in Europe for the Jews to have their state rather than inflicting it on the Palestinians.

The "recycling" of their property and money ( I called it theft on a grand scale) you had no issues with this.I did, I objected to the appellation 'theft.'
All in all you do seem to hold very definate racist views towards the Jews.No, I don't. But I do have contempt for Jewish ethno-supremacism and Talmudism for the same reason I find WSism odious.

[cerberus]

You are getting the chicken and the egg mixed up here
I am trying to keep an open mind on "chicken and eggs."

I don't believe you are a "white is right" chap.:)
I remember saying that alright. I seem to remember the context being your endless and puerile trolling.
As I recall you were stuck in the "it was all legal mode" so nothing criminal could have taken place , I asked you to reflect on how you might feel if you were declared stateless in your own country , it came from this as best I can recall.
"Trolling" did not apply.
Theodore Herzl and the Zionist movement
I don't know these gentlemen but I am pretty sure those who were "resettled" would not have been seeking to be "resettled".Choice and consent were not an option.
I did, I objected to the appellation 'theft.'

Its the same issue as per the phora Ireland ?
Since it was not donated freely and it was taken , theft would seem to be the word which suits it best.
This is why I would have to have a problem with your view of the Holocaust , there is a lack of honesty here on which people will have to make up thier own minds.
Not "trolling" here BTW , merely reflecting on your use of words.
"Resettlement" = "Forced transportation".
"Your belonging will follow you " = "We are stealing them".
"You will see your familiy later" = "You will never see them again".
" Shower" = "Gas". ( depending on in which line you are standing).
"Recycling" = " Sending someoneselses property to Germany".

[Sulla the Dictator]

You didn't bother to just cite the actual 'lecture', and instead chose to just cut and paste a board message, and after some 11 pages of a topic you yourself started, and claimed to be 'of great significance', you admit You just parroted some post you read somewhere on another board instead of verifying it, a simple task to say the least. And yet, you have no problem calling legitimate historians liars and 'proven falsifiers' ...


Radek makes an excellent point O'Reilly. Is a Bulletin Board now a legitimate, competitive source compared to an 'authors' actual credited text?

[Basil Fawlty]

Radek makes an excellent point O'Reilly. Is a Bulletin Board now a legitimate, competitive source compared to an 'authors' actual credited text?I don't read his postings so I have no idea what he is saying.

How do you know that the CODOH text is any more authoritative than the one with the [herein]? I mean, how did you know that Renk did not add the [herein] because in a discussion with someone of your views sometime last year, he contacted Renk and discussed the exchange (the Rev forum version). I presume on that basis Renk is aware of that post and if he objected, my discussion partner would have told me pretty quickly, I'm sure.

The people of CODOH and the Rev forum are a community so I cannot imagine them doing such a thing as you are implying.

I'm not really interested in this matter until such a time as I see a statement from Renk clarifying the [herein].

I used that version of the exchange originally to look at the primary sources mentioned to see if it all held together because the implications of the exchange are pretty momentous. That is what I will come back to shortly.

I will be returning to the substantive issue of the thread over the next few days.

[A. Radek]

So Basil's answer is yes.

I agree codoh is a joke site. Clicking on the index at the bottom of the Renk article Basil didn't bother to ever read, I find the usual 'diesel fumes can't kill anybody' gibberish:

This in ignorance of the fact that a diesel will not, in all but the most extreme conditions, produce toxic exhaust.

Of course I can't find any Deniers willing to let me prove first hand it indeed can. I have a 325 HP diesel, and can get a trailer much larger than the gas chambers, if a dozen or so Nazis and dozen or so of their sympathizers are willing to give it a try. I made the offer on alt.revisionism a few times, but got no takers there, either. A simple trip around the block is not too much to ask, is it?

[A. Radek]

Radek makes an excellent point O'Reilly. Is a Bulletin Board now a legitimate, competitive source compared to an 'authors' actual credited text?

Well, he can claim it was 'peer reviewed' ...
:p:rofl:

[Basil Fawlty]

I am trying to keep an open mind on "chicken and eggs."Good for you. Perhaps we can come back to this sometime.

I don't believe you are a "white is right" chap.:)Of course you don't! You know me better than that.
I don't know these gentlemen but I am pretty sure those who were "resettled" would not have been seeking to be "resettled".Choice and consent were not an option.This is a very interesting topic. I would refer you to the work of the Jewish Marxist historian Lenni Brenner who has made a close study of the high degree of collusion between the NS and the Zionists at the highest levels. Hardly suprising since they shared common aims - the removal of European Jewry from Europe to somewhere else.
E.g. http://www.marxists.de/middleast/brenner/

Its the same issue as per the phora Ireland ?:confused: Youv'e lost me. Clarify please.
Since it was not donated freely and it was taken , theft would seem to be the word which suits it best.
This is why I would have to have a problem with your view of the Holocaust , there is a lack of honesty here on which people will have to make up thier own minds.
Not "trolling" here BTW , merely reflecting on your use of words.
"Resettlement" = "Forced transportation".
"Your belonging will follow you " = "We are stealing them".
"You will see your familiy later" = "You will never see them again".
" Shower" = "Gas". ( depending on in which line you are standing).
"Recycling" = " Sending someoneselses property to Germany".We have been over this countless times before. Perhaps we can return to it at some other time, although I don't really see the point, seeing as you never take a blind bit of notice of what I say one way or the other. :rolleyes:

[Sulla the Dictator]

How do you know that the CODOH text is any more authoritative than the one with the [herein]?


Because the Revisionist forum has a link to the CODOH on its banner, and the article I linked is on the CODOH forum.


I mean, how did you know that Renk did not add the [herein] because in a discussion with someone of your views sometime last year, he contacted Renk and discussed the exchange (the Rev forum version). I presume on that basis Renk is aware of that post and if he objected, my discussion partner would have told me pretty quickly, I'm sure.


I certainly think its possible that Renk doctored his discussion with Browning, so that he wouldn't be held accountable by his readers for what he actually said. But its just as likely that Hannover doctored it, since I can't see any reason for a "secret text" which contains one line of difference.

Can you?


The people of CODOH and the Rev forum are a community so I cannot imagine them doing such a thing as you are implying.


I doubt Renk does a search of his name every day on the board. I doubt he would look too closely at what appeared to be a copy and paste. Nor do I think he would have a problem with the doctored version.

I do though. Its obviously dishonest.

[cerberus]

although I don't really see the point, seeing as you never take a blind bit of notice of what I say one way or the other. :rolleyes:


On one hand that could be asid of you as well and on the other it dfoes illustrate the same use of language you staed existed in the "One third of the Provisionals.." thread.
The use of the terms " resettlement" and "recycling" given what the final solution was are quite meaningless , "it is helpful to know what words mean" if I might borrow from the script of the film "Conspiracy".
PS Please don't deliver another one of your leactures on "you have learned your history from a film etc".

The people of CODOH and the Rev forum are a community
The latter delete posts which don't tow the party line , so they are not really into any form of debate other than that of the " Daleks" :rofl:
A. Radek sums it up exactly.

Hardly suprising since they shared common aims - the removal of European Jewry from Europe to somewhere else.

You don't mind Reinhold if I :rofl: at this point.
It is the way which you suggest that the Jewish population only got what their leaders wanted which I find to be a sick joke , that and the "fact" that they were not murdered.
The Jews already "somewhere in the east" were "resettled" in mass graves by Heydrich's killing squads.

[Sulla the Dictator]

Well, we have our answer.

Sulla the Dictator: Interesting article. Do you happen to have a link, Hannover?

Hannover: Sulla,

see:
http://www.codoh.com/gcgv/gcgvbrowning.html


Which is what I originally linked:


I do not question the fact that millions of Jews were murdered in the Holocaust

http://revforum.yourforum.org/viewtopic.php?p=19775#19775

So what do we take from this? Do you still deny that Hannover doctored this document?

[Sulla the Dictator]

I can understand why O'Reilly is a bit agog here. I've directed my question at the source. I've said "I'm a bit confused. Why have you doctored this?"

I suspect my stay on the Revisionist Forum won't be lengthy.

EDIT: I'll be a bit surprised if my post is even made visible by their censors.

[Basil Fawlty]

Well, we have our answer.

Sulla the Dictator: Interesting article. Do you happen to have a link, Hannover?

Hannover: Sulla,

see:
http://www.codoh.com/gcgv/gcgvbrowning.html


Which is what I originally linked:


I do not question the fact that millions of Jews were murdered in the Holocaust

http://revforum.yourforum.org/viewtopic.php?p=19775#19775

So what do we take from this? Do you still deny that Hannover doctored this document?What do we take from this? Well first of all you are playing the same game that you accuse Renk of ("Interesting article. Do you happen to have a link, Hannover?"), so hypocrite springs to mind. But leaving that aside, this doesn't amount to anything really. He was very forthcoming with the link. Surely if there was something sinister he might have been more reluctant. The next step would be to ask for a contact for Renk and then raise the [herein] question. In this way the whole matter of the [herein] will be resolved one way or the other.

I'm not sure what bearing it has on our exchange though.

btw, what I said earlier is true, I have never had any communications with Hannover so I have no idea what his answer will be. I await to see how this unfolds.

[cerberus]

hypocrite springs to mind
Funny , that describes Renk exactly in his exchanges with Browning. Renk was attempting to portray a man simply asking questions , not disputing that millions died , whilst concealing his own views and agenda.
When Browning became suspicious and would not play ball , Renk uses the limited exchange to what advantage he can.
Yes , you are describing Renk very well.

[Sulla the Dictator]

What do we take from this? Well first of all you are playing the same game that you accuse Renk of ("Interesting article. Do you happen to have a link, Hannover?"), so hypocrite springs to mind.


Nonsense. I'm asking for the link. There's nothing deceptive about my question, nor am I misrepresenting myself.

"Give me the fucking link to your article you filthy Holocaust Denier" doesn't sound like a good tone to start my first post with on that board.


But leaving that aside, this doesn't amount to anything really.


Other than the fact that its doctored.


He was very forthcoming with the link. Surely if there was something sinister he might have been more reluctant.


He doesn't think anyone noticed, and no one over there did.


The next step would be to ask for a contact for Renk and then raise the [herein] question. In this way the whole matter of the [herein] will be resolved one way or the other.


It has been resolved. Hannover linked his story to the one I linked. Its been altered. By him.



I'm not sure what bearing it has on our exchange though.


A great deal. First of all, it has to do with a doctored source. The Revisionist forum is a dishonest and illegitimate source of information. We've established this with a cursory examination.

Secondly, it has to do with what now must be your rejection of Renk. Thirdly, it has to do with Renk's assault on an event of history without offering an alternative theory.

[il ragno]

"Give me the fucking link to your article you filthy Holocaust Denier" doesn't sound like a good tone to start my first post with on that board.


And yet it sounds perfectly natural, too!

It's a sad, depressing signpost of our degraded age that one of the only two descriptive titles people are allowed to - encouraged to - vent at with pejorative modifiers like "filthy" and "fucking" is holocaust denier. (The other one, of course, is racist.)

Our nation is dying. The West is dying. And yet our anger may only be allowably funnelled towards state-sanctioned two-minute-hate objects that have had nothing to do with our shockingly rapid decline, like 'Nazis', 'neo-Nazis', 'kinda sorta Nazis'....and of course, the Klan. I've got six locks and a deadbolt on my front door because of the "filthy fucking" Ku Klux Klan, of course - but doesn't everyone?

[Sulla the Dictator]

And yet it sounds perfectly natural, too!


LOL I smell the bitterness.


It's a sad, depressing signpost of our degraded age that one of the only two descriptive titles people are allowed to - encouraged to - vent at with pejorative modifiers like "filthy" and "fucking" is holocaust denier. (The other one, of course, is racist.)


:nono: Lets not mischaracterize that statement. It was a jibe, not a serious statement or question.


Our nation is dying. The West is dying.


Not subjects for this thread.


And yet our anger may only be allowably funnelled towards state-sanctioned two-minute-hate objects that have had nothing to do with our shockingly rapid decline, like 'Nazis', 'neo-Nazis', 'kinda sorta Nazis'....and of course, the Klan. I've got six locks and a deadbolt on my front door because of the "filthy fucking" Ku Klux Klan, of course - but doesn't everyone?

I'll point out that you folks are responsible for your own image in this society. You generally are an angry crowd which vents its rage carelessly. Your associates also tend to be crude and vulgar.

We dislike hearing you describe some of our closest friends and neighbors as "Niggers, spicks, kikes, and gooks."

I think its interesting that you folks wish to make yourselves martyrs because we disapprove of your behaviour.

[il ragno]

I'll point out that you folks are responsible for your own image in this society.

You're talking about a nation where 2/3 of the populace can not only describe the contents of a big Mac, but sing it to the tune of the commercial, note-perfect. But people arrive at their own decisions based on a fair and dispassionate weighing of the facts. Yeah, that'll fly.

Kindly peddle your you-did-it-to-yourselves bs elsewhere, Sulla. In my America, everything known about 'racists' has been gleaned from cop shows and comic books.

[Sulla the Dictator]

You're talking about a nation where 2/3 of the populace can not only describe the contents of a big Mac, but sing it to the tune of the commercial, note-perfect. But people arrive at their own decisions based on a fair and dispassionate weighing of the facts. Yeah, that'll fly.


I see. Well I used to travel in a more Subura like scene, and I can tell you that there were no Rhodes scholars amongst the skinheads I met as I drank my way through half the punk shows in Vegas. :p

Between your "these boots will stomp all over you" songs, your "Nigger AIDS death rates" threads, and your Goldfinger-like Jew behind every bush, your fellow citizens have taken your measure in full.


Kindly peddle your you-did-it-to-yourselves bs elsewhere, Sulla. In my America, everything known about 'racists' has been gleaned from cop shows and comic books.

I'm being honest when I tell you that you are simply not impartial enough to evaluate your side in any honest fashion.

You may choose to remember 'scholarly' discussions about genetics or history, but you obviously seem to forget Wehrmacht playing dress up and Martin Lindstedt's views on genital mutilation and breeding mares.

These things aren't normal.

[cerberus]

Wehrmacht playing dress up
If I might borrow a word from the "Nigger AIDS thread" :

"I would pay good money to see" the good Doctor Brandt dressing up.
Does this imply that he might yet make an appearance with "Emily Howard" in " Little Britain" as a TV in training ? :rofl:

[il ragno]

I can tell you that there were no Rhodes scholars amongst the skinheads I met as I drank my way through half the punk shows in Vegas.

Then you shouldn't have been hanging around them. I'd certainly give skinheads a wide berth but I haven't encountered all that many.

Between your "these boots will stomp all over you" songs, your "Nigger AIDS death rates" threads, and your Goldfinger-like Jew behind every bush, your fellow citizens have taken your measure in full.

I've never written any songs, didn't begin that thread and never claimed to see Jews hiding behind hedges. But I realize it's very very important to you to make these claims, the better to seem reasonable by comparison. The same way you chose to mention "punk rock", and drinking heavily, to secure your hip-cred bonafides. You're no adenoidal, koombaya-humming weenie! - you're a head-bangin', hard-rockin' anti-racist, shirtless and untamed in your egalitarianism. We get it.

You may choose to remember 'scholarly' discussions about genetics or history, but you obviously seem to forget Wehrmacht playing dress up and Martin Lindstedt's views on genital mutilation and breeding mares.

I'd never waste my time having a scholarly discussion with you, Sulla - you're the Phora's official kibitzer, arch and unctuous; any comment made to you in seriousness is just going to become grist for your what-fools-these-Klan-kleagles-be disdain. I'm not going to spin my wheels arguing with you, one reason for that being your tendency to paint me, Lindstedt and "Wehrmacht" with the same kosher-for-Passover brush. If someone can please figure out why I should feel concern, let alone responsibility, for what other people (who are not me - just thought I'd underline that) do, or say, or don't do and say, make sure you nudge me awake to let me know.

[Fade the Butcher]

These things aren't normal.

Pat Robertson is a Republican, right? Wasn't he saying just the other day that God struck down Ariel Sharon for dividing Israel?

[Basil Fawlty]

Nonsense. I'm asking for the link. There's nothing deceptive about my question, nor am I misrepresenting myself.

"Give me the fucking link to your article you filthy Holocaust Denier" doesn't sound like a good tone to start my first post with on that board.You no more declare yourself to Hannover than Renk does to Browning. Its your hypocrisy to criticise Renk. I do not criticise you for not declaring yourself to Hannover anymore than I criticise Renk in respect of Browning. Its your double standards I find odious.
Other than the fact that its doctored.A theory you hold but for which no proof has so far been produced. All you have shown is that it has been edited (and we are grateful to you for discovering that*). If by Renk or with his approval the term 'doctored' would be misrepresentation. That's why I suggest you contact him, as I said he is most accomodating to people of your views.
He doesn't think anyone noticed, and no one over there did. I see, and so you have privileged access to Hannover's thoughts?
It has been resolved. Hannover linked his story to the one I linked. Its been altered. By him.You infer, but that is not proof. Only Renk can clear this up.
Secondly, it has to do with what now must be your rejection of Renk.I don't reject the piece posted here. I reject his more general views expressed in the longer CODOH version. Thirdly, it has to do with Renk's assault on an event of history without offering an alternative theory.Why should we look to him for that in this discussion? I'm sure I can offer an alternative explanation, in fact I already have.


* Up to now I did not know of the existence of the full text. Until recetly CODOH archives were offline (for a year or two). It comes as a surprise then to discover that Renk believes in Holocaust Lite.

[Sulla the Dictator]

I'd never waste my time having a scholarly discussion with you, Sulla - you're the Phora's official kibitzer, arch and unctuous; any comment made to you in seriousness is just going to become grist for your what-fools-these-Klan-kleagles-be disdain.


Well then, I honestly don't see the reason for you being in this thread. Certainly a shot of bourbon will be better company for your "Woe are we" speech.

You're no adenoidal, koombaya-humming weenie! - you're a head-bangin', hard-rockin' anti-racist, shirtless and untamed in your egalitarianism. We get it.

Are you hitting on me? I'm flattered. :o

[Sulla the Dictator]

Pat Robertson is a Republican, right? Wasn't he saying just the other day that God struck down Ariel Sharon for dividing Israel?

I don't quite understand what Pat Robertson, Ariel Sharon, Il Rango's angst, or "The Death of the West" have to do with this doctored import from the Revisionist forum.

[Basil Fawlty]

I don't quite understand what Pat Robertson, Ariel Sharon, Il Rango's angst, or "The Death of the West" have to do with this doctored import from the Revisionist forum.I don't quite understand what this pathetic attempt to dramatise an edited text (as well as slandering Hannover*) has to do with the convergence of 'witness' statements on the universally discredited Soviet Report on Auschwitz in respect of body disposal capacity.





* Perhaps he should be invited here to defend his name?

[Sulla the Dictator]

You no more declare yourself to Hannover than Renk does to Browning. Its your hypocrisy to criticise Renk. I do not criticise you for not declaring yourself to Hannover anymore than I criticise Renk in respect of Browning. Its your double standards I find odious.


Well there are, in fact, a number of differences. I'm asking for a link. I'm not saying "Hey Hannover, I don't believe in the Holocaust either, but....". I'm simply asking for his SOURCE.

That board is notorious for its rampant abuse of posters who don't follow the party line. I've posted one neutral line because thats the only way it would get posted, I've posted another question which they haven't even let onto the board and probably won't.

I do not engage Hannover in a discussion pretending to be a Holocaust Denier, and then asking him about an issue to get him to admit elements of the Holocaust. I do not harass him over a period of weeks. I simply asked him for a link. I've also asked him why he doctored it, which hasn't been posted.

That you attempt to draw a parallel is amusing. It also smells a bit desperate.


A theory you hold but for which no proof has so far been produced. All you have shown is that it has been edited (and we are grateful to you for discovering that*). If by Renk or with his approval the term 'doctored' would be misrepresentation. That's why I suggest you contact him, as I said he is most accomodating to people of your views.


If you combine the fact that Hannover GAVE a link to his source, which was what I identified as the ACTUAL text, with the fact that they won't allow my post on their website, its obvious there has been doctoring. This is absurd.

"Find Renk at his home address and ask him in person."


I see, and so you have privileged access to Hannover's thoughts?


I know why my follow up question hasn't been posted. Here's the new one I'm sending:

Hannover,

I'm a bit confused. In your post, Renk says:

I do not question [herein] the fact that millions of Jews were murdered in the Holocaust.

While in Renk's article, which you linked as your source, he says:

I do not question the fact that millions of Jews were murdered in the Holocaust.

Why did you feel the need to alter this statement?


You infer, but that is not proof.


Actually what you are doing is showing the Holocaust Denier habit of demanding an irrational, unreachable burden of proof that is never demanded in any other subject.

Here we have two links. One link is to a Bulletin Board, one is to an article by "Brian Renk". The content of the links differs. The opposition would have us believe that a bulletin board PASTE is as authoritative a source as an article BY THE AUTHOR. O'Reilly doesn't see that as absurd, since he's painted into a bit of a corner here.

So I go the extra mile. Even though I don't have an account there, I establish one in order to ask Hannover a question. The new theory the opposition floats is that Renk and Hannover secretly communicate, and Renk might have given Hannover permission to doctor his conversation. OR Hannover has access to a SECRET version of Renk's article, and posted that.

So we explode this new theory. Hannover links us to his source, which is what I originally identified. Now, having identified who doctored the source, O'Reilly would have me track down RENK to see if he gave Hannover approval to doctor his work. All this responsibility while *I* never posted the article in the first place.

Meanwhile, any questions I pose at Hannover will be censored and removed by their mods.


Only Renk can clear this up.


Its already clear. This is a model of Holocaust Denial. We have fabrications, doctored work, unwillingness to take responsibility, and irrational hurdles for proof.


I don't reject the piece posted here.


Thats Hannover's piece. So you agree with a poster from Revisionist forum who never had a discussion with Professor Browning. :p


I reject his more general views expressed in the longer CODOH version.


The ACTUAL version, he means.


Why should we look to him for that in this discussion? I'm sure I can offer an alternative explanation, in fact I already have.


I haven't seen it.

[Sulla the Dictator]

I don't quite understand what this pathetic attempt to dramatise an edited text (as well as slandering Hannover*) has to do with the convergence of 'witness' statements on the universally discredited Soviet Report on Auschwitz in respect of body disposal capacity.


I already answered that question in my larger post. THIS discussion was in fact supposed to be part of that one, but you replied to it first because you thought it was an error on my part. :p


* Perhaps he should be invited here to defend his name?

Hannover can address my questions on that board.

[Basil Fawlty]

That board is notorious for its rampant abuse of posters who don't follow the party line. I've posted one neutral line because thats the only way it would get posted, I've posted another question which they haven't even let onto the board and probably won't. Translation: they won't allow anti-Revs to turn it into the online sewer pipe known as alt.revisionism.

I do not engage Hannover in a discussion pretending to be a Holocaust Denier, and then asking him about an issue to get him to admit elements of the Holocaust. I do not harass him over a period of weeks. I simply asked him for a link. I've also asked him why he doctored it, which hasn't been posted.

That you attempt to draw a parallel is amusing. It also smells a bit desperate. Once again we are treated to Sullen self-righteousness and hypocrisy. You want your cake and eat it.

On the one hand you criticise Renk for approaching Browning as a crypto-denier, on the other hand you then flourish Renk as a believer in the Holocaust, i.e. minus the [herein] and + the rest of the article!

What's it to be: is or he is he not a "holocaust denier"?


If you combine the fact that Hannover GAVE a link to his source, which was what I identified as the ACTUAL text, with the fact that they won't allow my post on their website, its obvious there has been doctoring. This is absurd.What is obvious is that one version differs from the other. If it is authorised by Renk it is editing, if not then, and only then, is it doctoring. Hitherto you have failed to show that it is not editing. Only Renk can clear that up.

"Find Renk at his home address and ask him in person."Is this an actual statement by someone or a bit of invention on your part?



I know why my follow up question hasn't been posted. Here's the new one I'm sending:

Hannover,

I'm a bit confused. In your post, Renk says:

I do not question [herein] the fact that millions of Jews were murdered in the Holocaust.

While in Renk's article, which you linked as your source, he says:

I do not question the fact that millions of Jews were murdered in the Holocaust.

Why did you feel the need to alter this statement?
This last sentence is an accusation based on a presumption, you have shot yourself in the foot; how convenient for you! Now you can come whining here that they wont play with you and that there is something sinister going on.

You should have innocently asked if he knew why there was a difference.



So I go the extra mile. Even though I don't have an account there, I establish one in order to ask Hannover a question.Good so far. The new theory the opposition floats is that Renk and Hannover secretly communicate, and Renk might have given Hannover permission to doctor his conversation. OR Hannover has access to a SECRET version of Renk's article, and posted that.Now I am confused, who has said anything about secret communications?

It might very well have gone like this - "Hey Brian I want to post up your rather excellent exchange with Browning, are there any changes you want to make?" If you have ever published anything you will know that this is a quite normal question that editors/publishers etc put to authors.

Or perhaps Renk himself edited it and passed it on to Hannover without comment, after all you have yet to show why anyone should be getting excercised about this.

So we explode this new theory. No, Sulla just gives us yet another display of his masterly talents at demolishing strawman arguments of his own construction! Hannover links us to his source, which is what I originally identified. Now, having identified who doctored the source,No, now you have made a self-serving inferential leap. O'Reilly would have me track down RENK to see if he gave Hannover approval to doctor his work. When I debated with an anti-rev (by private e mail last year) he was able to contact Renk and get back to me within 24 hours. I have no reason to believe he was making it up so I don't see what your problem is. He got contact details from the very same person whose name you are trying to blacken now! All this responsibility while *I* never posted the article in the first place. The responsbiilty is all on you becasue it is you who is accusing soeone of "doctoring" the text. I have not made that allegation, you have. If you want to stand over it, prove it.

Meanwhile, any questions I pose at Hannover will be censored and removed by their mods.
You have ensured that by accusing Hannover: Why did you feel the need to alter this statement?
Thats Hannover's piece.We await proof of that allegation. So you agree with a poster from Revisionist forum who never had a discussion with Professor Browning. :pNo, I agree with what I posted. If we drop the [herein] then I agree with everything except the statement which contained the [herein].
Its already clear. This is a model of Holocaust Denial. We have fabrications, doctored work, unwillingness to take responsibility, and irrational hurdles for proof. Clutching at straws now. If you were to publish your assertions about Hannover in real life under your real name, and you were hauled up for libel (say in a British or an Irish libel court - the kind I would be more familiar with), would you tell that to the judge when he demands you produce proof that Hannover "doctored" that text? You would be a fool if you did.
I haven't seen it.Of course you have, I have already mentioned it a couple of times earlier in the thread.

[Sulla the Dictator]

LOL Apparently Renk WAS responsible for manipulating his own work. Wow, this is a bigger torpedo than I thought.

[Sulla the Dictator]

The Holocaust Deniers are a closer knit group than even *I* had thought, since Renk and Hannover apparently communicate often. Maybe we'll hear from Renk himself. :D

[Sulla the Dictator]

This censoring is outrageous.

[Sulla the Dictator]

So far one out of three of my posts makes it to the board. Lets see how this one does.

[b]
I did not alter the statement, I reproduced it the way Brian sent it to me after the CODOH text was posted. Brian & I are on good terms, we communicate with each other regularily.


So he sent you a different version of the text via e-mail after the original was posted?


He evidently saw need to clarify what he said. Apparently he doesn't really buy into the 'millions' bit, but didn't care to debate it in the letters [herein] to Browning and wanted subsequent readers to know that. In fact, as one can see, they did not specifically talk total numbers.


If he does not question that millions of Jews were killed in the Holocaust, his exchange with Browning takes on a different tone. Browning begins by discussing Soviet figures with someone who suggests that they're of like minds on the issue. Upon realizing that he is, in fact, discussing the issue with someone who does not accept that premise, it makes more sense that he is miffed.

When you add [herein] in the context of their discussion, it sounds as though Renk and Browning begin the discussion with mutual understanding about where the other stands. That is apparently not the case.

Moreover, it doesn't seem wise to add things to a document that is supposed to be a reproduction of an actual conversation regarding Soviet fabrication and tampering. A bit ironic, no?


And what's clear when reading his debunking of the storyline, there is no reason to accept that Renk believes in the silly 'millions'.


Well, except that he said he didn't question that millions of Jews were killed in the Holocaust. :P


That's my view at this point, I'll double check with Brian for you.


Thanks. :)

[Sulla the Dictator]

LOL They're reading me! :D

[A. Radek]

The Holocaust Deniers are a closer knit group than even *I* had thought, since Renk and Hannover apparently communicate often. Maybe we'll hear from Renk himself. :D

There aren't many of them, and they are a small self-reinforcing group with the same publishers in common. That's why in these 'debates,' when you actually demand an answer for a question from one of them, they disappear for a while, so they can go ask what their response should be, despite constantly proclaiming their 'superior knowledge and grasp of the topic'. I have stuff downloaded from VHO, and it's hilarious how much they cite each other as 'sources' and all the circular references they use in their footnotes.

[Dan Dare]

Or perhaps Renk himself edited it and passed it on to Hannover without comment, after all you have yet to show why anyone should be getting excercised about this.

As a mildly interested bystander the same thought occured to me.

[Sulla the Dictator]

As a mildly interested bystander the same thought occured to me.

Its amusing to see a doctored piece which is supposed to be an exchange between a holocaust denier and a historian where the denier exposes doctored evidence. :p

[cerberus]

Its amusing to see a doctored piece which is supposed to be an exchange between a holocaust denier and a historian where the denier exposes doctored evidence.
But he would deny that .:p

[Sulla the Dictator]

But he would deny that .:p

Well the story is now that Renk made the alteration himself in a private e-mail. Which is worse than Hannover, some random poster, doctoring it.

[Dan Dare]

Its amusing to see a doctored piece which is supposed to be an exchange between a holocaust denier and a historian where the denier exposes doctored evidence. :p

If you're sure that 'doctored pieces' are good ground in which to plant your flag in terms of this particular subject matter, I've got some nice snaps of a "Gas Van" that I'd appreciate your thoughts on.

[A. Radek]

Sulla, you do realize that by Denier 'logic' and 'reasoning', this means the entire body of Holocaust Denial literature is now rendered completely invalid, and therefore proves the Holocaust really did happen, don't you?:D

[Sulla the Dictator]

If you're sure that 'doctored pieces' are good ground in which to plant your flag in terms of this particular subject matter, I've got some nice snaps of a "Gas Van" that I'd appreciate your thoughts on.

I doubt it. But regardless, you can't accuse a historical community of fabricating, tampering, and doctoring evidence as you DOCTOR YOUR OWN RECORDS!

I mean, its simply absurd.

[Sulla the Dictator]

Sulla, you do realize that by Denier 'logic' and 'reasoning', this means the entire body of Holocaust Denial literature is now rendered completely invalid, and therefore proves the Holocaust really did happen, don't you?:D

Especially since, in my evaluation, Brian Renk is the world's leading Holocaust Denier. :D

[Dan Dare]

I doubt it. But regardless, you can't accuse a historical community of fabricating, tampering, and doctoring evidence as you DOCTOR YOUR OWN RECORDS!

I mean, its simply absurd.

You doubt what? I thought that was "our" job:p

[Sulla the Dictator]

You doubt what? I thought that was "our" job:p

C'mon Dan, I'm sure you can see how this reflects poorly on Holocaust Denial. :p

[Dan Dare]

I notice you're not showing much interest in seeing my Gas Van pix, why's that?

[Sulla the Dictator]

I notice you're not showing much interest in seeing my Gas Van pix, why's that?

Because I'm unaware of their chain of custody.

[cerberus]

Especially since, in my evaluation, Brian Renk is the world's leading Holocaust Denier.
He can be found on " Google" so he must be an expert.;)
Was it "Dr. Brandt" who coined the term " Google Historian" , I gues Renk qualifies. "9" mentions of his name .;)

[Dan Dare]

Because I'm unaware of their chain of custody.

Some other time, then.

I'll have them circle-K'd just for you. ;)

[Sulla the Dictator]

Perhaps Sulla cares to debate here on what Renk really does, expose the stupidity of statements from people like Mueller & Tauber. But no, instead, Sulla chooses to ignore Renk's mangling of those liars.

That doesn't sound too promising. I can't seem to get more than 1 out of 3 posts made visible NOW, while talking about the article that Hannover posted. I can't see debating more complicated issues at the moment. Perhaps that will change.

But I'd like to see what happens here first.

[Sulla the Dictator]

Sulla:
You've posted remarks which assume that Hannover edited Renk's work. He has said he has not and has indicated he's awaiting a response from Renk. Please, let's not make such accusations.


Actually, that isn't so. I said:

If he does not question that millions of Jews were killed in the Holocaust, his exchange with Browning takes on a different tone. Browning begins by discussing Soviet figures with someone who suggests that they're of like minds on the issue. Upon realizing that he is, in fact, discussing the issue with someone who does not accept that premise, it makes more sense that he is miffed.

When you add [herein] in the context of their discussion, it sounds as though Renk and Browning begin the discussion with mutual understanding about where the other stands. That is apparently not the case.

Moreover, it doesn't seem wise to add things to a document that is supposed to be a reproduction of an actual conversation regarding Soviet fabrication and tampering. A bit ironic, no?


Thats a general use of "you", not specifically aimed at Hannover necessarily. I can understand how it would appear confusing. The use of "you" in the new context established by Hannover can reasonably describe Brian Renk.


If you wish to debate the veracity of Muller, Tauber, and others mentioned by Renk, then please do. So far you have avoided them, as Goethe has pointed out.


I actually haven't avoided anything. This thread is about this exchange, from what I've read. For example:

Most Excellent!

This is typical when you corner those defending false holocaust claims.
You can never have a complete open dialogue with these people, because eventually they see where your coming from and they will try to get out of the discussion as quickly as possible to save face.
Thank God for these sites because without them our brains would turn to mush!

--TRUTHATLAST

understanding of history as functional rather than truthful

What a nice way to say that they didn't give shit about the truth.
Does that remind you of anyone?

--kk

These are comments about the exchange itself, not really about the content or issues involved. These are comments about the person, Browning.

I would hate to believe that the players in this exchange become irrelevant once the focus turns away from the historian, Browning, to Mr. Renk.


There are existing threads on them, you are also encouraged to start new ones. We welcome your views in that regard.


Well thank you, I might just take advantage of your invitation to do so. I'd like to clarify this issue first. I'm also testing the waters a bit. I wouldn't want to commit to an hour long post only to see it fall short of moderator standards.

[Sulla the Dictator]

I doubt that will be posted. Ironically, the Mods who are censoring me have the sig:

Only lies need to be shielded from debate, truth welcomes it.

LOL

[Hugh Jorgen]

I doubt that will be posted. Ironically, the Mods who are censoring me have the sig:

Only lies need to be shielded from debate, truth welcomes it.

LOL


On a point of understanding on systemic bias, You're not fooling anybody. As you know the Holohoax did not happen but it may be a prophesy.


Sulla: Feel free to join in the debate if you like. There is no need for vulgar flaming in the Highbrow section.

[Sulla the Dictator]

Its becoming clear that there is no debate allowed in the Revisionist forum. Its a help center for Holocaust Deniers when they run into trouble.

http://revforum.yourforum.org/viewtopic.php?t=2876

[Sulla the Dictator]

Sulla:
You've posted remarks which assume that Hannover edited Renk's work. He has said he has not and has indicated he's awaiting a response from Renk. Please, let's not make such accusations.


As you well know, that is not an accurate characterization of my missing post.


If you wish to debate the veracity of Muller, Tauber, and others mentioned by Renk, then please do. So far you have avoided them, as Goethe has pointed out.


As you well know, since it was included in my missing post, this thread has been about parties of this exchange. Notably, until I arrived, Professor Browning.

Its odd that the parties of the debate are no longer relevant once a question is asked about Brian Renk.


We welcome your views in that regard.


I honestly doubt that, considering.

[Basil Fawlty]

Its becoming clear that there is no debate allowed in the Revisionist forum. Its a help center for Holocaust Deniers when they run into trouble.

http://revforum.yourforum.org/viewtopic.php?t=2876Quit whining, they have long experience of dealing with disruptive elements. They are not going to allow you to do what you get away with here, i.e. twist and distort and misrepresent.

They are ruthless in their insistence that posters stick to the point. I've seen revisionists being dressed down there for wandering off on tangents, never mind someone there only a day making unsubstantiated accusations against a respected long-time poster at their forum.

Play with a straight bat (its good for the soul) and I have no doubt you will last the course there.

[Basil Fawlty]

Well the story is now that Renk made the alteration himself in a private e-mail. Which is worse than Hannover, some random poster, doctoring it.Amazing! So now authors are not allowed to edit their own texts!

[Basil Fawlty]

Originally Posted by Moderator
Sulla:
You've posted remarks which assume that Hannover edited Renk's work. He has said he has not and has indicated he's awaiting a response from Renk. Please, let's not make such accusations.
Actually, that isn't so. I said:

Actually it is:

Why did you feel the need to alter this statement?

You accused Hannover of altering Renk's words, just as the Rev Forum mod says.

[cerberus]

Quit whining, they have long experience of dealing with disruptive elements. They are not going to allow you to do what you get away with here, i.e. twist and distort and misrepresent.
Those who do not click their heels are deleted.
The revisionist forum are only interested in true party members.

[Sulla the Dictator]

Quit whining, they have long experience of dealing with disruptive elements. They are not going to allow you to do what you get away with here, i.e. twist and distort and misrepresent.

They are ruthless in their insistence that posters stick to the point. I've seen revisionists being dressed down there for wandering off on tangents, never mind someone there only a day making unsubstantiated accusations against a respected long-time poster at their forum.


Actually from what you can see of the posts I've pasted (And they've deleted), I'm not at all being disruptive. I'm in fact being quite polite. Moreover, that thread is (Or atleast, was) about the exchange between Renk and Browning. Didn't you read all the 'high fiving' going on, and the jabs at Browning?

As soon as we get to the doctored piece, I'm supposed to commenting on Tauber. :rolleyes:

There is no illusion of debate.

[Sulla the Dictator]

Actually it is:



You accused Hannover of altering Renk's words, just as the Rev Forum mod says.

I asked him that and it was POSTED! Thats why he revealed Renk altered the piece.

When I question WHY Renk altered it, the mods won't let it be posted. They won't let there be any discussion, which is why this was deleted:

If he does not question that millions of Jews were killed in the Holocaust, his exchange with Browning takes on a different tone. Browning begins by discussing Soviet figures with someone who suggests that they're of like minds on the issue. Upon realizing that he is, in fact, discussing the issue with someone who does not accept that premise, it makes more sense that he is miffed.

When you add [herein] in the context of their discussion, it sounds as though Renk and Browning begin the discussion with mutual understanding about where the other stands. That is apparently not the case.

Moreover, it doesn't seem wise to add things to a document that is supposed to be a reproduction of an actual conversation regarding Soviet fabrication and tampering. A bit ironic, no?

There is nothing 'off topic' about this. There is no accusation of Hannover in this.

Its a silly little petri dish for Holocaust denial.

[Sulla the Dictator]

Amazing! So now authors are not allowed to edit their own texts!

That isn't 'his' text. Thats a reproduction of an exchange. No, authors are not allowed to ALTER exchanges with another party.

[Basil Fawlty]

Actually from what you can see of the posts I've pasted (And they've deleted), I'm not at all being disruptive. I'm in fact being quite polite. Moreover, that thread is (Or atleast, was) about the exchange between Renk and Browning. Didn't you read all the 'high fiving' going on, and the jabs at Browning?Is that what you call it? You actually think accusing someone of tampering with the text of another is within the bounds of politeness?

[Basil Fawlty]

That isn't 'his' text. Thats a reproduction of an exchange. No, authors are not allowed to ALTER exchanges with another party.Nothing has been altered in the sense you are trying to push. The [herein] seems to be included to eliminate an ambiguity for that is what it actually does. Because it is in square brackets it alerts the reader that it has been supplied later.

Your really straining now with this trivia.

[Basil Fawlty]

I asked him that and it was POSTED! Thats why he revealed Renk altered the piece.

There is nothing 'off topic' about this. There is no accusation of Hannover in this. Hello? In that bit perhaps not, but here, which is what they are objecting to:
Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator
Why did you feel the need to alter this statement?
its all to clear

[Sulla the Dictator]

Is that what you call it? You actually think accusing someone of tampering with the text of another is within the bounds of politeness?


The text has been altered. Its more reasonable to assume a poster altered it than the author.

[Sulla the Dictator]

Nothing has been altered in the sense you are trying to push. The [herein] seems to be included to eliminate an ambiguity for that is what it actually does. Because it is in square brackets it alerts the reader that it has been supplied later.


That is unacceptable for the purpose of representing a dialogue, which is about context. You can't alter the context with inserts and hold any legitimacy. You certainly were fooled. Brackets are also used for explanation and reference.

With the [herein], Browning is talking to a Holocaust Denier who is upfront with his agenda. His last query, then, is irrational.

Without it, Browning is dealing with someone misrepresenting their position, posing as someone looking for clarification. Renk was actually assaulting the history. Hence Browning's last response is not only understandable, its REASONABLE. You can't have a dialogue with a liar.


Your really straining now with this trivia.

This is the only topic currently under discussion, since my last post stands unchallenged except for this matter. :p

[Sulla the Dictator]

Hello? In that bit perhaps not, but here, which is what they are objecting to:

its all to clear

Explain to me why they POSTED what they objected to, and deleted what is obviously not objectionable?

[Sulla the Dictator]

Moreover, why does Renk alter it in secret communiques with Hannover?

THAT doesn't strike you as odd?

[Sulla the Dictator]

Now they're deleting posts and the mods are responding to small portions of the deleted posts. O'Reilly, you can't possibly take these guys seriously.

[Hugh Jorgen]

THAT doesn't strike you as odd?

Actually you strike me as odd, I think you must have crazy glued your yarmulka.

[Basil Fawlty]

That is unacceptable for the purpose of representing a dialogue, which is about context. You can't alter the context with inserts and hold any legitimacy. You certainly were fooled.Fooled in what sense? I have never been under any doubt that the [herein] was notin the letter to Browning and was supplied later. Brackets are also used for explanation and reference. These (. . .) are used for that whereas [. . .] means what is enclosed is not in the text.

With the [herein], Browning is talking to a Holocaust Denier who is upfront with his agenda. His last query, then, is irrational. We have already covered that. If the [herein] was included in the text of the letter sent to Browning, there would have been no response at all.
Without it, Browning is dealing with someone misrepresenting their position, posing as someone looking for clarification. No different from your approach to the Rev forum (which I do not criticse you for, in fact I encouraged you to approach in a bland and neutral way. Its a pity you didn't maintain that tone because when you start accusing people like you did, the dialogue has been sabotaged.

I critcise you for your hypocrisy in this.
Renk was actually assaulting the history. Spare us the Lipstadtian gibberish.

Hence Browning's last response is not only understandable, its REASONABLE. You can't have a dialogue with a liar.Where is the lie? It turns out Renk does not actually question that millions of Jews were murdered. Or does he? I which case he was perfectly jstified in supplying the [herein] for wider circulation.

You can't have it both ways Sulla: does he or does he not question that millions were murdered?

[Basil Fawlty]

Explain to me why they POSTED what they objected to, and deleted what is obviously not objectionable?Why are you asking me? I'm not involved with the Rev forum, so you had better ask them.

[Basil Fawlty]

Moreover, why does Renk alter it in secret communiques with Hannover?

THAT doesn't strike you as odd?What strikes me as odd is your continuing insistence in using these rhetorically charged terms like "secret" to describe correspondence.

[Sulla the Dictator]

Fooled in what sense? I have never been under any doubt that the [herein] was notin the letter to Browning and was supplied later.


Warping the context of the letter.


These (. . .) are used for that whereas [. . .] means what is enclosed is not in the text.


Right. And this is how they [the brackets] are properly used.

Not like [just like] this.

You don't use them to please your audience. I don't go onto the Holocaust denier BB and say something like "Listen, I doubt the Holocaust too" and then copy and paste it as; "Listen, I doubt the Holocaust too [for the purpose of establishing my credentials here]" in a dialogue with Hannover.


We have already covered that. If the [herein] was included in the text of the letter sent to Browning, there would have been no response at all.


Because legitimate scholars don't waste their time with conspiracy nuts.


No different from your approach to the Rev forum (which I do not criticse you for, in fact I encouraged you to approach in a bland and neutral way. Its a pity you didn't maintain that tone because when you start accusing people like you did, the dialogue has been sabotaged.


Rubbish. I didn't AGREE with them or RENOUNCE my beliefs. I asked a simple question. I didn't say, "You, Holocaust Denier, give me the link to your insipid worthless article." On the other hand, I didn't say, "Renk's right, Hannover. I'd like to see more of Renk's work so that I may know about the Jewish lie that is the Holocaust. Can you link me?"

No. I just asked for the link, and that was the last time I was able to post without rampant censorship.

Accusing people? THE POST IS ALTERED. That Hannover has some secret copy of it isn't MY responsibility to know. Its HIS responsibility to declare.

I personally find it unlikely. Notice that with his conversation with Renk, he doesn't answer my question.


I critcise you for your hypocrisy in this.


There is no hypocrisy whatsoever. You're just desperate now. Being POLITE in an environment which deletes any dissent is different than LYING about my position.


Spare us the Lipstadtian gibberish.


Hey bud, I just went through a forum where your side DELETES posts which disagree with them. Go visit Discussanything.com, for example, which is filled with people who disagree with you, and look at the 12 page Holocaust debate threads between Jack Boot, a white supremacist, and a variety of different people.


Where is the lie? It turns out Renk does not actually question that millions of Jews were murdered. Or does he? I which case he was perfectly jstified in supplying the [herein] for wider circulation.


He was lying to Browning or he is lying to you. I don't particularly care which it is, since either way he's a liar.


You can't have it both ways Sulla: does he or does he not question that millions were murdered?

Part of what makes him an illegitimate partisan and a non-scholar is that you need to ask.

[cerberus]

Spare us the Lipstadtian gibberish.
Reinhold , do I detect some doubt as to professor Lipstadt's credibility:confused:
Me thinks she defended herself very well and wrote objectively on the denial of the Holocaust.
Certainly there is nothing in the Renk Browning exchange which would undermine a single word she has written.

[Basil Fawlty]

Warping the context of the letter. not to any literate person.
Because legitimate scholars don't waste their time with conspiracy nuts.They were discussing the sources not conspiracies. Or are you saying that no one is permitted to discuss the sources unless they subscribe to the official narrative?
Rubbish. I didn't AGREE with them or RENOUNCE my beliefs. I asked a simple question. I didn't say, "You, Holocaust Denier, give me the link to your insipid worthless article." On the other hand, I didn't say, "Renk's right, Hannover. I'd like to see more of Renk's work so that I may know about the Jewish lie that is the Holocaust. Can you link me?"
You made an accusation which poisoned the dialogue thereafter. Deliberately, I suspect.
No. I just asked for the link, and that was the last time I was able to post without rampant censorship.

Accusing people? THE POST IS ALTERED. That Hannover has some secret copy of it isn't MY responsibility to know. Its HIS responsibility to declare.It was altered alright (probably edited by the author as is his right) but you accused Hannover of doing so without any proof at all.

I personally find it unlikely. Notice that with his conversation with Renk, he doesn't answer my question.I'm not following it too closely (yawn) if something significant occurs I'm sure you will let us know. :)
There is no hypocrisy whatsoever. You're just desperate now. Being POLITE in an environment which deletes any dissent is different than LYING about my position.It is not poliite to make baseless accusations.
Hey bud, I just went through a forum where your side DELETES posts which disagree with them. Go visit Discussanything.com, for example, which is filled with people who disagree with you, and look at the 12 page Holocaust debate threads between Jack Boot, a white supremacist, and a variety of different people. I understand they delete trolling and anti-rev attempts to subvert, I have followed some of those threads, particularly the rather mad activities of A Mathis during his now legendary soujourn there. :rofl: This policy is born of long and painful experience of online toilets like alt.revisionism where no tactic is too low for the heroic defenders of holononsense. Beyond that I cannot really comment. I hardly visit that board at all.
He was lying to Browning or he is lying to you. I don't particularly care which it is, since either way he's a liar.Another baseless accusation from the fearless online warrior.
Part of what makes him an illegitimate partisan and a non-scholar is that you need to ask.I have my own views about that, the point is, I want to know what you think.

When it suits you he is a believer and when it doesn't he's a crypto-denier or something like that. Now tell us: according to you, is he a "denier", "crypto-denier" or a sceptical believer, or what?

[Sulla the Dictator]

Well well well. We've apparently discovered the reason for the heavy moderation.

Hannover is Moderator 1. :p

He can't answer the questions and has been deleting the posts.

[Basil Fawlty]

Well well well. We've apparently discovered the reason for the heavy moderation.

Hannover is Moderator 1. :p

He can't answer the questions and has been deleting the posts.Oh this is the Mathis line (yawn). Wake me up when you have something new. :D

[Sulla the Dictator]

Oh this is the Mathis line (yawn). Wake me up when you have something new. :D

I never realized how easy debating could be when you delete your opponent. :p

[Trojan]

Oh this is the Mathis line (yawn). Wake me up when you have something new. :D

Do you doubt that Hannover is moderator 1?

What would you consider to be proof?

[Sulla the Dictator]

Do you remember a character from the Revisionist board and the Axis board named Scott Smith, O'Reilly?

[Basil Fawlty]

Do you remember a character from the Revisionist board and the Axis board named Scott Smith, O'Reilly?The guy who started the other board, RODOH?

[Basil Fawlty]

Do you doubt that Hannover is moderator 1?

What would you consider to be proof?An admission to that effect. Failing that, a stylometric analysis.

[Sulla the Dictator]

The guy who started the other board, RODOH?

Apparently so. He is a Holocaust Denier who himself is more than reasonably embarassed about the way the Revisionist board is run.

[Basil Fawlty]

Apparently so. He is a Holocaust Denier who himself is more than reasonably embarassed about the way the Revisionist board is run.Yes, I'm aware of his views on this topic.

[Sulla the Dictator]

Yes, I'm aware of his views on this topic.

Is he wrong? You've seem to imply that my objections are "sour grapes". He seems to have gotten evicted from that site because of his objections to the way things were being done.

[cerberus]

Well nothing like an exchange of views or not as the moderator dictates , or deletes.

[Basil Fawlty]

Is he wrong? You've seem to imply that my objections are "sour grapes". He seems to have gotten evicted from that site because of his objections to the way things were being done.No, he's not evicted and neither is Mathis (this was still the case last time I checked the situation - some time ago). I think very few people are actually banned.

As to your question, is he wrong? Hard to say one way or the other. I understand his position on this and I understand the Rev forum's position.

[Trojan]

No, he's not evicted and neither is Mathis (this was still the case last time I checked the situation - some time ago). I think very few people are actually banned.

As to your question, is he wrong? Hard to say one way or the other. I understand his position on this and I understand the Rev forum's position.

You are wrong - ok - dead wrong. Mathis is banned, Scott is banned, I am banned, Roberto is banned, Mike Curtis is banned, Sergey is banned ... should I go on? Why don't you ask them who is banned, they either will not answer or not allow the post to appear.

It took them weeks of blasting Mathis about a recent article, with no response by Mathis, to finally admit he is perm. banned.

As for proof, a former poster, Sailor, a rather honest revisionist, interceded when I was first a member and shortly banned with no reason given.

When I e-mailed Sailor as to why I banned, he e-mailed Hannover in protest and copied me on the e-mails. He then forwarded Hannover's subsequent e-mail in response so I could see Hannover's response. In short, I was reinstated, briefly (which lasted until Sailor retired, then I was banned again - no reason given).

If Hannover is not the moderator, he has the moderator's powers.

Ask yourself how someone could account for over 20% of a heavily moderated forum's total post count without having the inside tract.

Also, ask yourself why PM's are not allowed to new members, inquire with the board, ask if any non-revisionists are allowed uncensored posts or are given PM ability. Hannover is such a control freak that he will not allow any discussion to take place that he cannot control.

No one, except the most obstinate revisionist, will claim Hannover is not the moderator ... all I can say is go to RODOH and ask for more proof, if they are not tired of answering the question you will be overwhelmed with proof.

[Basil Fawlty]

You are wrong - ok - dead wrong. Mathis is banned, Scott is banned, I am banned, Roberto is banned, Mike Curtis is banned, Sergey is banned ... should I go on? Why don't you ask them who is banned, they either will not answer or not allow the post to appear.If this is true then it is news to me. Last time I checked on this question, there was a suggestion that Mathis was banned and this was strongly denied so I presumed this was still the case. I haven't been following things in the world of rev/anti-rev fora for some time.

Why don't I ask them? I don't post there but maybe I will ask them because it is very odd that all these people are banned, revs and anti-revs alike. Perhaps I would be banned as well, heh!?
It took them weeks of blasting Mathis about a recent article, with no response by Mathis, to finally admit he is perm. banned.

As for proof, a former poster, Sailor, a rather honest revisionist, interceded when I was first a member and shortly banned with no reason given. This is the first time I have ever seen an anti-rev concede that someone can be an honest revisionist. You have my respect.
When I e-mailed Sailor as to why I banned, he e-mailed Hannover in protest and copied me on the e-mails. He then forwarded Hannover's subsequent e-mail in response so I could see Hannover's response. In short, I was reinstated, briefly (which lasted until Sailor retired, then I was banned again - no reason given).Good for Sailor, he did the right thing. I remember you as a frequent poster and I am very surprised that you are banned.
If Hannover is not the moderator, he has the moderator's powers.

Ask yourself how someone could account for over 20% of a heavily moderated forum's total post count without having the inside tract.There is no question that he occupies a special position there. I'm just not sure that he really is a sock puppet mod. I wouldn't rule it out either.
Also, ask yourself why PM's are not allowed to new members, inquire with the board, ask if any non-revisionists are allowed uncensored posts or are given PM ability. Hannover is such a control freak that he will not allow any discussion to take place that he cannot control.As regards Hannover's debating style, I agree with you. But I think that is a personality thing rather than anything sinister. To tell you the truth, I don't much warm to the man, he's a bit too prickly for my liking. The disabled PM thing I never agreed with.
No one, except the most obstinate revisionist, will claim Hannover is not the moderator ... all I can say is go to RODOH and ask for more proof, if they are not tired of answering the question you will be overwhelmed with proof.I'm sure I could glean the evidence from just reading the relevant threads if necessary. I tend to take your word for it that things are as you describe them. I posted there for a short period quite some time ago but gave up because I felt the moderation policy was a bit too severe for my liking. Certainly it is right to want to avoid the horrors of alt.revisionism, but there is a happy medium I think.

[cerberus]

Trojan does shed light on how this board seems to operate , I have attempted to post there but no luck , killed off .
That Hanover is the main man stands out a mile even to the casual visitor , the banner head showing two people in heated discussion just does not happen - there is no discussion.
Sulla summed it up pretty well earlier on- its a drop in point for hardcore denial and an information / support line for those who want to use it as that.

Aa far as any objective debate goes Axis forum provides the best platform it is well run and moderated.
I know that Reinhold has mentioned previously that denial is not permitted but if you can support your view with fact it is allowed.
Problem for the hardcore denial system is that it is not based on fact and in a nut shell that is why Browning was never in a snooker to begin with.
Renk was playing games and attempting to manipulate , Browning saw this and pulled him.
No snooker , no big deal.

[Trojan]

From the key board of moderator 1 (Hannover):

On inquiries about Mathis:

The Moderators here have been through this, we have tried to work with Mathis.

But Mathis tries to hurt people, or have them hurt. He posts their alleged names, addresses, phone numbers, and work places, he even posts pictures of alleged Revisionist like wanted posters for god's sake.

He was permitted to post here and as usual, blew it and resorted to namecalling and spammed the board. He did the same thing at the CODOH BBS repeatedly, was readmitted, but continued his usual trash dance and got banned by CODOH's various moderators.

In other words, he's a low class individual, a man most foul who goes berserk when his unsupportable beliefs are refuted.

He will not be allowed to post here. We have guidelines which he has violated over & over again. His record is more than clear, and he only has himself to blame. However, all the points from his posts are here to be read anyway.

Thanks, Moderator 1

http://revforum.yourforum.org/viewtopic.php?t=2816&highlight=banned

[Basil Fawlty]

From the key board of moderator 1 (Hannover):

On inquiries about Mathis:

The Moderators here have been through this, we have tried to work with Mathis.

But Mathis tries to hurt people, or have them hurt. He posts their alleged names, addresses, phone numbers, and work places, he even posts pictures of alleged Revisionist like wanted posters for god's sake.

He was permitted to post here and as usual, blew it and resorted to namecalling and spammed the board. He did the same thing at the CODOH BBS repeatedly, was readmitted, but continued his usual trash dance and got banned by CODOH's various moderators.

In other words, he's a low class individual, a man most foul who goes berserk when his unsupportable beliefs are refuted.

He will not be allowed to post here. We have guidelines which he has violated over & over again. His record is more than clear, and he only has himself to blame. However, all the points from his posts are here to be read anyway.

Thanks, Moderator 1

http://revforum.yourforum.org/viewtopic.php?t=2816&highlight=bannedBut in his case I agree with them. He is not a nice person and has a track-record of nasty behaviour.

[Trojan]

But in his case I agree with them. He is not a nice person and has a track-record of nasty behaviour.


Andrew does not suffer fools lightly, and he does not make excuses for his behavior (nor will I).

However, he is damn smart and with a few exceptions, is the most knowledgeable anti-revisionist I have encountered.

[Basil Fawlty]

Andrew does not suffer fools lightly, and he does not make excuses for his behavior (nor will I).I wouldn't expect you to.

However, he is damn smart and with a few exceptions, is the most knowledgeable anti-revisionist I have encountered.I don't agree on either score.

[Trojan]

Well, at a minimum, you should give him credit for this:

"I realize that it is not in the general benefit of RODOH for me to have admin rights in this forum.

Thus, I am asking Scott to remove my admin abilities, and my moderator abilities, and leave me as a general member.

This being the case, I would ask that those "revisionists" that have refused to come here and debate now come with no fear that I have any access to IP numbers or any recourse to censoring your posts.

I also extend my apologies to Mr. Bradley Smith for my poor treatment of him when he visited here.

RODOH is unique in being a forum that allow unfettered free speech and is co-run by revisionists and anti-revisionists. No other forum afford this opportunity.

I will no longer stand in the way of it becoming the biggest and best forum.

Scott: Make it so.

And please contact your associates that this is the case.

a.m. "

http://p102.ezboard.com/frodohforumfrm2.showMessage?topicID=1379.topic

Can you picture Hannover stepping aside for the good of the forum?


ps: "Okay, it's done. I'll post this at the CODOH blog because I am banned from the Revisionist Forum." Scott Smith

[Basil Fawlty]

Well, at a minimum, you should give him credit for this:

"I realize that it is not in the general benefit of RODOH for me to have admin rights in this forum.

Thus, I am asking Scott to remove my admin abilities, and my moderator abilities, and leave me as a general member.

This being the case, I would ask that those "revisionists" that have refused to come here and debate now come with no fear that I have any access to IP numbers or any recourse to censoring your posts.

I also extend my apologies to Mr. Bradley Smith for my poor treatment of him when he visited here.

RODOH is unique in being a forum that allow unfettered free speech and is co-run by revisionists and anti-revisionists. No other forum afford this opportunity.

I will no longer stand in the way of it becoming the biggest and best forum.

Scott: Make it so.

And please contact your associates that this is the case.

a.m. "

http://p102.ezboard.com/frodohforumfrm2.showMessage?topicID=1379.topic (http://p102.ezboard.com/frodohforumfrm2.showMessage?topicID=1379.topic)
Fair enough, that's very magnanimous. When did this happen?

Can you picture Hannover stepping aside for the good of the forum? As I said earlier, I'm no fan of his. I would find it hard to imagine alright.
ps: "Okay, it's done. I'll post this at the CODOH blog because I am banned from the Revisionist Forum." Scott SmithI see.

[Trojan]

I posted this at the old Phora because of the great signifcance of this exchange.



Dear Mr. Renk,

The tone of our correspondence seems to have changed from exchange to
interrogation, in which you feel entitled to demand answers at your
convenience to an unending series of questions. Now it is my turn to pose
some questions. Who are you? What is your agenda?

Christopher Browning



I did not respond to Browning's final letter. I had respectfully asked very specific questions, and he was clearly not prepared to answer them. I don't think my "agenda" is relevant. I was asking a question about the
significance of a specifically false reference in the witness testimony.
It's a very interesting exchange. I asked simple questions and received
simple answers. However, when it was unequivocally spelled out that Dr.
Browning's answers failed to address the subject I was specifically
interested in, he did not wish to continue the correspondence. Typical.

source: http://revforum.yourforum.org/viewtopic.php?t=611&highlight=renk+browning

Does anyone else see the irony here?

Renk breaks off the discussion and declares victory.

Revisionists get to ask all the questions, demand answers on their terms, but refuse to answer the most simple direct questions put to them.

Its the damn vampirick crucifix reaction again :nono:

[Dan Dare]

At the risk of raking over dead coals, the thing I find more than a little curious is how Browning could be affect to be unaware of Brian Renk, after all he (Browning) apparently earns a decent living orbiting the rev/antirev demimonde, and you'd think he would have dropped in on CODOH or Irving's site from time-to-time.

Also it's curious that he should have thought that a correspondent asking relatively straightforward questions about a very public academic's interpretation of the historical record should, ipso facto, have an 'agenda'.

[Basil Fawlty]

Does anyone else see the irony here?Seriously, no.

Renk breaks off the discussion and declares victory.More like mission accomplished. Browning realises the signifcance of these figures and at the same time he realises that Renk has led him to this (unwelcome) realisation. Browning is caught in an elenchus.

Revisionists get to ask all the questions, demand answers on their terms, but refuse to answer the most simple direct questions put to them.The questions about the substantive matters had been completed. Browning should have reflected long and deep about his own failure to be critical when it came to these figures. Clearly he had not, and got a bit of shock when he realised the implications.

I wouldn't feel sorry for him, especially after that monument to cherry picking and selective presentation Ordinary Men.
Its the damn vampirick crucifix reaction again :nono:Lol! The what?

[Trojan]

"Its the damn vampirick crucifix reaction again" = recoiling like a vampire before a crucifix.

So its basically ok for a revisionist to just walk away after he is asked a question and claim victory? You should seek out Jetblast over at RODOH - this is one of his tactics.

[Basil Fawlty]

"Its the damn vampirick crucifix reaction again" = recoiling like a vampire before a crucifix.Ah, gotcha! :D

So its basically ok for a revisionist to just walk away after he is asked a question and claim victory?I don't think "claiming victory" is the right way to describe this. The substantive matter was the disposal figures, Renk had achieved the objective, which was to get Browning to see for himself how things do not pan out in the official account. I don't think this would have been possible if Renk had said at the outset ("Hi, I'm a Holocaust Revisionist, let's talk disposal figures at Auschwitz-Birkenau!"). In this - getting Browning to see the problem for himself - he succeeded, hence my term 'mission accomplished' as opposed to 'victory'. Surely the ultimate aim is to discover historical truth not to win in debating contests.
You should seek out Jetblast over at RODOH - this is one of his tactics.That's a new name, I don't know him. I'll have a look.