Riga, November 30, 1941

Read and post various viewpoints or search our large archives.

Moderator: Moderator

Forum rules
Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!

Did the liquidation of this Berlin transport actually occur?

Yes
2
25%
No
3
38%
I don't know
3
38%
 
Total votes: 8

Hebden
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 467
Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2002 11:17 am
Location: Here and there, mostly there

Riga, November 30, 1941

Postby Hebden » 1 decade 6 years ago (Thu Jan 16, 2003 7:27 pm)

We present a relevant excerpt from Mr. Richard Breitman's 1998 book Official Secrets:

Jeckeln's preparations in and outside Riga did not proceed swiftly enough to accomodate the schedule of transports from Germany. The civil authorities also raised some obstacles. So five convoys of German Jews from Munich, Berlin, Frankfurt, Vienna, and Breslau were diverted from Riga to Kowno, where Einsatzkommando 3 and Lithuanian auxiliary police had of course already massacred tens of thousands of Lithuanian Jews in several of the forts surrounding the city. Between November 25 and 29, the Jews from the five transports were liquidated en masse in Fort 9.

In Riga, on or around November 27 there was a meeting of SD and Order Police commanders at the Order Police headquarters. The Latvian auxiliary police were also represented. This meeting established the schedule for the ghetto operation of November 30 and parceled out roles for all the participating police organiztions. On November 28, the SS and police authorities ordered the removal of as many as four thousand adult male Jews whom they considered capable of labor and sent them into a separate section of the ghetto, which they barricaded off. They also separated three hundred female Jewish workers and sent them to a prison. Some other groups were quickly added, so that the total number destined for the small ghetto may have reached five thousand. Most of the Jews from the ghetto, however, were ordered to assemble on November 30, allegedly for resettlement to a new camp, Salaspils, nearby. They were permitted to bring luggage with them, a ruse to sustain the notion of resettlement.

A transport of about one thousand Jews from Berlin arrived in Riga on the evening of November 29. They were left overnight at the railway siding and marched to the pits in the early morning. They became the first victims at Rumbuli, but their liquidation was a mistake of sorts. This transport included a number of decorated World War 1 veterans, who according to prior SS decisions, should have been sent to special camp at Theresienstadt for prominent or decorated early Jews. When Himmler found out about their presence on the train, he tried to cancel the killing, calling on Heydrich to intervene; but the action had already taken place. Himmler was furious at this breach of instructions and political insensitivity. On December 1, he sent out a radio message to Jeckeln: “The Jews resettled into the territory of the [Reich Commissariat] Ostland are to be dealt with only according to the guidelines given by me and the Reich Security Main Office acting in my behalf. I will punish unilateral acts and violations.”


We further append the previously cited excerpts from Messrs. Irving and Browning particularly for the benefit of new readers and others who might be confused by the complex task of collating information from as many as two separate threads:

Mr. Irving:

Quote:
It was Heydrich and the fanatical gauleiters in the east who were interpreting with murderous thoroughness Hitler’s brutal decree that the Jews must ‘finally disappear’ from Europe. Himmler’s personal role is ambivalent. On November 30, 1941 he took his train over to the Wolf’s Lair for a secret ‘bunker’ conference with Hitler, at which the fate of a trainload of 1,035 Berlin Jews was evidently on the agenda. A page from the Himmler file in the Moscow archives lists the Reichsführer’s appointments for that day. He received SS Sturmbannführer Gunther d ’Alquèn, a Goebbels journalist, from midday to one p.m. (to ‘report on trip to SS Police Division and Death’s-Head Division’); he worked for an hour (‘gearbeitet’), received General Dietl for a half-hour conference about an SS brigade on the Murmansk front, and lunched until four p.m.with Hitler (‘Mittagessen b.Führer’). Himmler’s all-important telephone notes, recorded on a different sheet, show that at 1:30 p.m. he spoke by telephone from ‘the bunker’ – that is, Hitler’s bunker – to Heydrich and dictated the explicit order that the Berlin trainload of Jews was not to be liquidated.*
The extermination programme had however gained a momentum of its own. The Goebbels article had been taken as a sign from the highest level. In fact, nobody needed any orders or written authority. There could be no clearer proof that the former Führer-State had become a state without a Führer. Five thousand Jews, including the trainload which had left Berlin three days before, the seventh to leave the capital city, had already been plundered of their valuables and shot to death in pits at Skirotawa, a few miles outside Riga, by nine a.m. that same morning, November 30.
The different roles of the SS, the army, and Hitler’s headquarters in this massacre are now well documented. The 1,035 German Jews, expelled from Berlin by train, had arrived outside Riga that morning in sub-zero temperatures, and they were shot out of hand even before the trucks loaded with four thousand Jews from Riga arrived and met the same fate. When Colonel Walther Bruns, a local army engineer-officer, learned a few hours earlier that he was about to lose his Jewish work-force he weakly protested to the city’s German mayor Hugo Wittrock and to his SS Stabsleiter, Werner Altemeyer, a baby-faced young SS officer with ash-blond hair and grey-blue eyes – then drove out to witness the liquidations in progress for himself. Four years later he still recalled the coarse yelling of the gunmen; he could still see in his mind ’s eye one of the victims, a ‘raving beauty’ in a flame-red blouse.


[...]

On the day after the shootings, December 1, Himmler again telephoned Heydrich at about one p.m., this time explicitly about the ‘executions at Riga.’

Somebody – and this can only have been Hitler himself – had reprimanded Himmler, because that same day, he sent not one but two radio messages to his SS police commander at Riga, SS Obergruppenführer Friedrich Jeckeln, warning of punishments for any further arbitrary and disobedient acts (‘Eigenm ä chtigkeiten und Zuwiderhandlungen ’) which contravened the guidelines laid down ‘by myself or by the Reichssicher- heitshauptamt on my orders’ on how to deal with the Jews who were being ‘out-placed to the Ostland [Baltic provinces ].’*
Himmler ordered Jeckeln, the recalcitrant mass-murderer, to report to his headquarters forthwith; their interview took place on the fourth, and for many months the multiple shootings of German Jews halted.


Mr. Browning:

Quote:
Gerlach also argues that no general destruction order could have been given before mid-December because only 6 of 41 transports of Reich Jews were liquidated immediately upon arrival before Hitler's December 12 speech. What Gerlach omits mention of, however, is that only 2 of the next 39 transports between mid-December and the end of April were liquidated upon arrival. A significant reduction in the number of transports subject to liquidation following Hitler's speech of December 12 is hardly convincing evidence for the Hitler Grundsatzentscheidung ['basic decision'] that Gerlach has claimed for that date.

Gerlach has provided much new evidence concerning a flurry of activity related to Nazi Jewish policy in December 1941. If the scenario he provides for this flurry of activity is unpersuasive, what did happen that month? I have argued that Hitler solicited the preparation of a plan for the Final Solution in mid-July 1941 and approved the resulting outline in early October. In the following month initial steps were taken: the deportation of Reich Jews and death camp construction began, Jewish emigration came to an end, and various officials of the Foreign Office and Ostministerium joined a widening circle of initiates. Until late November the deported Reich Jews were interned in ghettos in Lodz and Minsk. Then, suddenly, on November 25 and 29, 1941, all five transports from Berlin, Munich, Frankfurt, Vienna, and Breslau to Kovno were massacred at Fort IX. Did this occur as the result of a local initiative, as Gerlach has intimated? Or was it the point at which the Nazi regime officially crossed the threshold between deporting and murdering German Jews not just in conception but also in practice? I would suggest the latter interpretation.

As Gerlach's own research has shown, the deportation and killing of Reich Jew killings in Kovno gave rise to complications and complaints. Therefore, as the first transport of German Jews destined for Riga was arriving on November 30, Himmler telephoned, from Hitler's headquarters, to Heydrich in Berlin with the message: "Jewish transport from Berlin. No liquidation." Such an intervention, I think, suggests that prior to this telephone call both Himmler and Heydrich, as well as HSSPF Friedrich Jeckeln in Riga, understood that these transports of Reich Jews were to be liquidated; there would have been no occasion for a message to the opposite effect if it was not needed to countermand existing policy. This intervention was too late, however, and the Berlin transport that arrived in Riga in the midst of the ghetto liquidation was immediately massacred.

The following day Himmler discussed "executions in Riga" with Heydrich. Moreover, he sent Jeckeln an angry radio message on December 1, 1941, that was intercepted by the British: "The Jews resettled into the territory of the Ostland are to be dealt with only according to the guidelines given by me and the Reich Security Main Office acting in my behalf. I will punish unilateral acts and violations." And on December 4, 1941, Himmler met with Hitler in the morning and Jeckeln, recalled from Riga, in the afternoon. Given Himmler's insistence that German Jews in the east be treated only according to his guidelines and the lack of any repercussions against Karl Jager for the Kovno massacres (similar to those threatened against Jeckeln), I think this episode and the surviving documentation indicates that the five Kovno transports were liquidated on Himmler's directive and the first to Riga was liquidated simply because Himmler's new policy was not countermanded in time. Given the complications that emerged, Himmler temporarily retreated from killing German Jews, and thereafter, with just two exceptions, the winter transports to Riga that completed the first wave of deportations were lodged in the recently cleared Riga ghetto or in the nearby camps of Jungfernhof and Salispils. It would appear, therefore, that early December 1941 was not the date of a decision by which the Nazi regime sealed the fate of German Jewry but rather the date at which the murder of German Jewry was briefly postponed when the Himmler-sanctioned executions at Kovno resulted in too many complications.


Our concern first and foremost is the establishment or otherwise of the crime itself. Before the question 'how did it happen?' should first come 'But - did it happen?' Only then could one deign to discuss the merits of the quoted texts.

User avatar
Sailor
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 810
Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2002 6:54 pm
Location: California

Postby Sailor » 1 decade 6 years ago (Thu Jan 16, 2003 8:11 pm)

Hebden wrote: We present a relevant excerpt from Mr. Richard Breitman's 1998 book Official Secrets:

Pat Buchanan also always uses the plural form “we” when he is referring to himself. Cute.

Before the question 'how did it happen?' should first come 'But - did it happen?


No.
:D

Hebden
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 467
Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2002 11:17 am
Location: Here and there, mostly there

Postby Hebden » 1 decade 6 years ago (Thu Jan 16, 2003 8:40 pm)

Sailor wrote:
Hebden wrote: We present a relevant excerpt from Mr. Richard Breitman's 1998 book Official Secrets:

Pat Buchanan also always uses the plural form “we” when he is referring to himself. Cute.

Before the question 'how did it happen?' should first come 'But - did it happen?


No.


And we had such high hopes for you. We again invite you to present your alternative theory of what happened to the transport of Berlin Jews mentioned in Mr. Himmler's telephone log for 30 November.

elbod
Member
Member
Posts: 12
Joined: Fri Jan 03, 2003 4:46 pm

Postby elbod » 1 decade 6 years ago (Thu Jan 16, 2003 9:10 pm)

The key word seems to be "liquidated".

According to the quoted interpretations were the Berlin Jews liquidated before Himmler's counter-order(?) had time to arrive. The counter-order proves the liquidation.

"But-did it happen"?

It must have happened, since there was a counter-order! You cannot stop beating your wife, unless you actually have beaten her.

How does this incriminating counter order look like?

Verhaftung Dr Jekelius Angebl.
Sohn Molotow.
Judentransport aus Berlin.
Keine Liquidierung.

Literally translated as: "Arrest [=noun] Dr Jekelius. Alleg[ed] Son of Molotov. Jew Transport from Berlin. No Liquidation."

http://www.fpp.co.uk/Auschwitz/docs/Vicksell.html

Is there any grammatical reason - except word or "line" order - that it was not Dr Jekelius that was meant by the "no liquidation"? "Arrest him but spare his life"?

Does it follow from such an interpretation that the Jew transport WAS to be liquidated then?

Right or wrong, you lose.

So: it did happen, if the telephone note is proof of anything.

Regards/elbod.

User avatar
Sailor
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 810
Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2002 6:54 pm
Location: California

Postby Sailor » 1 decade 6 years ago (Thu Jan 16, 2003 11:11 pm)

I have Breitman’s book. Someone talked me into buying it, it was supposed to have copies of transcripts of the intercepted and deciphered radio messages in it. But unfortunately I did not find one, not a single one copy of one of these messages. The book is a typical hoaxer book: The wagon is as usually put in front of the horses. All these genocides, shootings, execution, and no proof.

What the book is all about? I will tell you: $40 Billion! To be extorted from the US.

You see, the complete title of the book is:
Official Secrets, What the Nazis Planned, what the British and Americans Knew.
Meister Hebden forgot the latter part of the title.

Breitman’s “new discoveries” are neither new nor convincing.

Breitman:
So five convoys of German Jews from Munich, Berlin, Frankfurt, Vienna, and Breslau were diverted from Riga to Kowno, where Einsatzkommando 3 and Lithuanian auxiliary police had of course already massacred tens of thousands of Lithuanian Jews in several of the forts surrounding the city. Between November 25 and 29, the Jews from the five transports were liquidated en masse in Fort 9.


The transcripts of German radio transmissions deciphered at the Code and Cipher School at Bletchley Park were from June 1941 until Sept. 13. How could they prove the alleged massacres of the Jews in those five trains in late November?

Mr. Irving:
It was Heydrich and the fanatical gauleiters in the east who were interpreting with murderous thoroughness Hitler’s brutal decree that […]


Any proof, any evidence?

Gerlach also argues that no general destruction order could have been given before mid-December because only 6 of 41 transports of Reich Jews were liquidated immediately upon arrival before Hitler's December 12 speech.[…]


Any proof, any evidence?

Browning: The following day Himmler discussed "executions in Riga" with Heydrich. Moreover, he sent Jeckeln an angry radio message on December 1, 1941, that was intercepted by the British: "The Jews resettled into the territory of the Ostland are to be dealt with only according to the guidelines given by me and the Reich Security Main Office acting in my behalf. I will punish unilateral acts and violations.[…]"

Executions, sure. Partisans were shot. Where does Himmler say anything about gassings, shootings, executions of Jews to be settled in the Ostland?

Browning is a fanatic exterminationist. Says Faurisson in the Zuendel trial:
"[...]Professor Christopher Browning ... gave a distressing display of what an American university professor can be like: an ignoramus of boundless naiveté, a lover of money and a man without scruples."
Added Klett: Prof. Browning is a specimen of the spiritual rot that flourishes in democracy.
:D

Hebden
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 467
Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2002 11:17 am
Location: Here and there, mostly there

Postby Hebden » 1 decade 6 years ago (Fri Jan 17, 2003 12:14 pm)

elbod wrote:
Verhaftung Dr Jekelius Angebl.
Sohn Molotow.
Judentransport aus Berlin.
Keine Liquidierung.

Literally translated as: "Arrest [=noun] Dr Jekelius. Alleg[ed] Son of Molotov. Jew Transport from Berlin. No Liquidation."

http://www.fpp.co.uk/Auschwitz/docs/Vicksell.html

Is there any grammatical reason - except word or "line" order - that it was not Dr Jekelius that was meant by the "no liquidation"? "Arrest him but spare his life"?


The answer is no - Ms. Dawidowicz's inference was certainly a valid one, if, according to Mr. Irving, incorrect. The point being that Dr. Jekelius was a Viennese (not a Berliner) and presumably, non-Jewish (as was Mr. Molotov).

What Ms. Dawidowicz can be criticised for is her apparent ignorance of the fact that practically all the later transports of Reich Jews to Riga were not liquidated.


Does it follow from such an interpretation that the Jew transport WAS to be liquidated then?

Right or wrong, you lose.

So: it did happen, if the telephone note is proof of anything.

Regards/elbod.


You forgot to vote. Shall we call that 2-2?

Hebden
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 467
Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2002 11:17 am
Location: Here and there, mostly there

Postby Hebden » 1 decade 6 years ago (Fri Jan 17, 2003 12:38 pm)

In these days of the Internet and in the area of Holocaust studies, one person cannot be easily ignored (or, for that matter, easily missed). That person is Mr. Michael Mills.

We reproduce the following extract from an old H-Holocaust posting of his due to its pertinence to our thread:

From: Michael Mills <[email protected]>
List Editor: "Mott, Jim" <[email protected]>
Editor's Subject: Reich Jews deported to Latvia (reponse to Ezergailis and Opferman n) (Mills)
Author's Subject: Reich Jews deported to Latvia (reponse to Ezergailis and Opferman n) (Mills)
Date Written: Sat, 25 Dec 1999 13:08:21 -0600
Date Posted: Sat, 25 Dec 1999 13:08:21 -0600


Mr Ezergailis writes that the record is pretty clear in regard to the
deportation of German Jews to Riga and other Baltic localities.

I agree that the course of events is fairly clear, and indeed Mr Ezergailis
provides an excellent description of the events in his book. Unfortunately,
he seems to have forgotten exactly what it was he wrote in his book, in
order to agree with Ms Opfermann's exaggerated claim that all the German
Jews were killed.

In his book, Mr Ezergailis shows that some 21,000 Reich Jews were deported
to Latvia (to Jungfernhof, the Riga Ghetto andd Salaspils). Of these, 6,240
were massacred by German security forces and their Latvian auxiliaries,
according to Mr Ezergailis' figures, consisting of:
30/11/41 - 1,000 in the first transport, killed
on arrival at Rumbula;
5/2/42 - 1,500 older Jews from Berlin and
Vienna, killed in Bikernieki Forest;
13-14/3/42 - 1,840 older Jews from Jungfernhof
killed in Bikernieki Forest, in 'Duenamuende
Aktion';
15/3/42 - 1,900 older Jews from Riga Ghetto
killed in Bikernieki Forest, in 'Duenamuende
Aktion'.

The source of Mr Ezergailis' figure of over 10,000 Reich Jews killed by
Lohse, Jeckeln and Lange, given in his message on this site, remains a
mystery. He appears to be tacitly denying the detailed statistics given in
his own book.

According to mr Ezergailis' statistics, 15,760 Reich Jews, or 75% of the
total who arrived in Latvia, remained unmassacred. This is a remarkably
high proportion to be left alive, given what normally happened to Jews
deported to other locations, and suggests that massacre was the exception
rather than the rule. It certainly refutes Ms Opfermann's claim that all
the German Jews were killed.

This high proportion selected to be left alive in itself indicates that
Reich Jews were given preferential treatment in comparison with eastern
Jews. For example, when the deportation of Polish Jews began in March 1942,
the German authorities estimated that only 40% could be used for labour and
60% would have to be liquidated; that is what Goebbels says in his diary
entry of 27 March 1942.

Of course, deliberate massacre was not the only cause of death, and many
Reich Jews succumbed to exposure and disease. Ezergailis writes that after
the last massacre in March 1943, the number of Reich Jews had reduced to
about 11,060, indicating that a further 4,700 had died from non-violent
causes. By February 1943, their numbers had reduced by a further 3000 to
8,070. Given that the Reich Jews were disproportionately in the higher age
groups, due to the pre-war emigration of the majority of the younger people,
such a high death rate from natural causes in a relatively harsh environment
is only to be expected.

Ezergailis writes that the life of the Reich Jews in the Riga Ghetto was
fairly peaceful after the Duenamuende Aktion, until their transfer to the
Kaiserwald Concentration Camp in July-August 1943.

In 1944 there were at least 12,000 of the Latvian and original Reich Jews
alive, so Ezergailis claims. In August of that year,he writes, most of
these Jews were sent by ship to Germany, either direct from Riga or via
Liepaja. He gives the dates of the shipments as 6 August, 25 and 29
September, with a final shipment at the beginning of October. It is
remarkable that the German authorities used scarce shipping to transport
German Jews back to Germany, rather than simply liquidating them on the
spot. That is a further indication that Reich Jews were given preferential
treatment.

The Jews shipped back to Germany were sent to a number of camps, especially
Stutthof, and many died during the winter of 1944-45. Nevertheless, Mr
Ezergailis disputes the claim by Gertrude Schneider that only 800 Reich Jews
survived the camps in Germany.

It is true that of the 21,000 Reich Jews deported to Latvia, the great
majority had died by the end of the war. However, an unusually high
proportion survived for a relatively long time; by mid-1944,
two-and-one-half years after their deportation, over one-third were still
alive.

Even if Gertrude Schneider was right and the final survival rate of the
Reich Jews deported to Latvia was only 10%, that would still be higher than
the survival rate of the German soldiers taken prisoner at Stalingrad ( of
90,000 taken into captivity, only 6,000 returend, or 6.7%).

The entire course of events described by Mr Ezergailis demonstrates that
German Government policy toward Reich Jews was different from that toward
Soviet Jews. However, Mr Ezergailis seems to want to avoid confronting that
fact.

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 9911
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Postby Hannover » 1 decade 6 years ago (Fri Jan 17, 2003 4:01 pm)

Mills is ludicrous. All we have here is the same tired assertions, but no evidence. Citing more laughable books is just more of the same Believer head banging.
Just saying certain numbers were allegedly murdered doesn't mean they were murdered. There are hundreds of thousands claiming UFO/alien abductions and scores of books to 'prove it'. People have sworn there was human soap and human skin lampshades. There is 'documentation' of steam chambers, chlorine chambers, delayed action gassing which allowed people to walk to the alleged mass graves. The assertions by Hebden and Mills are baseless.

I also find it interesting that somehow citing Irving gives credibility to an exterminationist position. Irving knows very little about the so called 'holocau$t' and is clueless about forensics and lack of physical evidence. He is in effect a strawman for the Belivers in many situations.

But back to basics...all these claims but no forensic/physical evidence to substantiate it. No evidence = a non-event.

- Hannover
If it can't happen as alleged, then it didn't.

Hebden
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 467
Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2002 11:17 am
Location: Here and there, mostly there

Postby Hebden » 1 decade 6 years ago (Fri Jan 17, 2003 5:53 pm)

Sir Martin Gilbert's 1981 book Auschwitz and the Allies contains reference to a contemporary witness account of the massacres in Riga:

Throughout October the messages from Geneva poured into London, New York and Jerusalem in a steady stream. On October 5 Lichtheim sent a seven-page report on the 'brutal assassination' of thousands of Jews in Riga eleven months before, in December 1941. As well as Latvian Jews, the report stated, there were several thousand German Jews 'who were deported last autumn to the Ghetto of Riga and of whom no more was heard'.

Lichtheim emphasized the veracity of this report. It had been brought, he said, by a Jew who had lived in Riga under false papers, outside the ghetto itself, and who had 'the extraordinary luck' of escaping from Latvia to Switzerland. His report consisted of what he had himself seen, and what he had been told by members of the Latvian police. On telling his story in Geneva, he had been cross-questioned for three hours by Gerhart Riegner, who had then written down all he had heard.

[A footnote reads:]

The escapee's name was Gabriel Ziwian. Born on 8 October 1923, he was at the time of the German invasion of Russia a medical student. Forced into the Riga Ghetto in October 1941, he ran away in December 1941, and hid in 'Aryan' Riga until March 1942, when he worked his way to the Baltic port of Stettin. From June to August 1942 he worked in the hospital at Stettin, and in September he escaped to Switzerland, reaching Geneva on 22 September 1942.

User avatar
Sailor
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 810
Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2002 6:54 pm
Location: California

Postby Sailor » 1 decade 6 years ago (Fri Jan 17, 2003 6:54 pm)

Hebden wrote: Michael Mills: The source of Mr Ezergailis' figure of over 10,000 Reich Jews killed by Lohse, Jeckeln and Lange, given in his message on this site, remains a mystery. He appears to be tacitly denying the detailed statistics given in his own book.


Did you read Ezergailis' book?

Michael Mills’ post is out of a thread from the TRF which is not accessible to me (I am banned there) and somewhat out of context and therefore not quite clear to me. Since I don’t have Ezergailis’s book The Holocaust in Latvia 1941-1945 I cannot really comment on this man’s theory.
But there seems to be some confusion in his book.

In any case, I need the sources given in the book. Without them the statements are worthless to me.
:D

User avatar
Sailor
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 810
Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2002 6:54 pm
Location: California

Postby Sailor » 1 decade 6 years ago (Fri Jan 17, 2003 7:21 pm)

Hebden wrote: Sir Martin Gilbert's 1981 book Auschwitz and the Allies contains reference to a contemporary witness account of the massacres in Riga: […]

From How Historian Gilbert Falsifies and Invents by Robert Faurisson:
British historian Martin Gilbert is a falsifier. While he is best known as the official biographer of Winston Churchill, he has also written several widely-lauded works on the "Holocaust." Gilbert, who is Jewish, staunchly defends the thesis of the so-called extermination of the Jews, an extermination allegedly carried out in particular by means of homicidal "gas chambers" and homicidal "gas vans." To defend this thesis he falsifies and invents.

:D

Temporary on hold
Member
Member
Posts: 119
Joined: Sat Nov 23, 2002 8:31 pm

Postby Temporary on hold » 1 decade 6 years ago (Fri Jan 17, 2003 8:31 pm)

After reading the comments on this topic it seems to me that the choice of answers is not complete. There should have been a third choice: "I don't know. It seems that we need an objective investigation of the actual facts."

User avatar
Scott
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 306
Joined: Mon Dec 02, 2002 7:00 am

Postby Scott » 1 decade 6 years ago (Fri Jan 17, 2003 9:11 pm)

Dubhghall wrote:After reading the comments on this topic it seems to me that the choice of answers is not complete. There should have been a third choice: "I don't know. It seems that we need an objective investigation of the actual facts."

I agree. Dichotomies don't further the cause for the demythologization of history. "I don't know" is a refreshingly honest answer.
:)

Hebden
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 467
Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2002 11:17 am
Location: Here and there, mostly there

Postby Hebden » 1 decade 6 years ago (Sat Jan 18, 2003 8:51 am)

Temporary on hold wrote:After reading the comments on this topic it seems to me that the choice of answers is not complete. There should have been a third choice: "I don't know. It seems that we need an objective investigation of the actual facts."


As it happens, we did attempt to include a 'Don't know' option, but our inexperience with the software resulted in failure. Once a poll has been set in motion we don't think it can be amended.

As for the part about needing an objective investigation of the facts, we wish you luck in finding such a mutually aggreable investigator, but trust you will understand that, in the meantime, one can make a tentative, provisional, subjective judgement, pro or contra, on the evidence that we already have.

Hebden
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 467
Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2002 11:17 am
Location: Here and there, mostly there

Postby Hebden » 1 decade 6 years ago (Sat Jan 18, 2003 9:01 am)

Scott wrote:
Temporary on hold wrote:After reading the comments on this topic it seems to me that the choice of answers is not complete. There should have been a third choice: "I don't know. It seems that we need an objective investigation of the actual facts."

I agree. Dichotomies don't further the cause for the demythologization of history. "I don't know" is a refreshingly honest answer.
:)


Shall we put you down as a 'don't know' then?

That makes the score (assuming Mr. Temporary on hold is also a 'don't know'), 2 votes for, 3 against, with 2 don't knows.


Return to “'Holocaust' Debate / Controversies / Comments / News”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests