Archive/File: holocaust/deniers wmm.1094
Last-Modified: 1994/10/29

From: wmmichael@aol.com (Wm Michael)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Bacque (Allied dates of warcrimes)
Date: 21 Oct 1994 08:28:02 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 103
Sender: news@newsbf01.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <388c4i$emb@newsbf01.news.aol.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf01.news.aol.com


From: Other Losses
pp. xi-xiii

1943
January: Churchill and Roosevelt meet at Casablanca and call for the
unconditional surrender of Germany.

May: Axis forces surrender at Tunis. Biggest prisoner round-up of war to
date. Eisenhower complains to Marshall, Its a pity we could not have
killed more.

November-December: Teheran Conference, Stalin and Roosevelt toast to the
deaths of 50,000 German officers to be shot after the war; Elliot
Roosevelt toasts to many more being shot, and says the U.S. Army will
support this. Churchill storms out of the room.

1944
February: Eisenhower appoints General Everett S. Hughes as his special
assistant.

June 6, D-Day: Americans, British, and Canadians invade Normandy.

September: Quebec Conference; the Morgenthau Plan to destroy German
industry is initialed by both Roosevelt and Churchill. The Allies reach
the Rhineland. A newspaper furor breaks out over the Morgenthau Plan.

October: Stalin agrees to the Morgenthau Plan with Churchill in Moscow.

November 4: Hughes advises Eisenhower to keep secret all orders dealing
with prisoner rations.

1945
February: Yalta Conference; Roosevelt, Churchill and Stalin discuss
dismemberment of Germany and reparations.

March 10: Eisenhower initials and signs an order creating the lethal DEF
status for prisoners, which breaks the Geneva Convention. He gives a
speech in Paris saying that the U.S. obeys the Geneva Convention.

April: The CCS approve the DEF status for some prisoners in U.S. hands,
but the British refuse to go along. Littlejohn reduces prisoner rations.

May 8: Germany surrenders. The U.S. removes Switzerland as the Protecting
Power for German prisoners, contravening the Geneva Convention. Eisenhower
tells Churchill he has reduced prisoner rations and may reduce them
further. Patton releases captives rapidly. Eisenhower orders his generals
to stop redesign prisoners. POW rations are reduced again.

June: General Lee strongly disputes incorrect prisoner totals being given
out by Eisenhowers HQ (June 2). Littlejohn complains that he cannot feed
the prisoners, now about 4,000,000. Many prisoners are secretly
transferred to the lethal DEF status without food or shelter. German
civilians are prevented from feeding prisoners. Civilians themselves begin
to starve. The ICRC attempts to send food into Germany, but the trains are
sent back by the U.S. Army. Prime Minister King of Canada complains about
the removal of Geneva Convention protection from German prisoners. The
British Foreign Office silences him.

July: Many U.S. prisoners are transferred to the French army in dying
condition. Captain Julien says one American camp looks like Buchenwald.

August: An order signed by Eisenhower consigns all remaining POWs to
lethal DEF status. The death rate immediately shoots up. General
Littlejohn complains in writing to Eisenhower that 1,550,000 people
supposed to be getting U.S. Army rations are receiving nothing. The ICRC
is forced to return food to donors because it is not allowed to send it to
Germany.

September: Jean-Pierre Pradervand of the ICRC tells de Gaulle that
one-third of prisoners in French hands recently received from the U.S.
Army will soon die unless help quickly arrives. French papers break the
Pradervand story. Eisenhower and Gen. Smith deny U.S. guilt. The _New York
Times_ reports bad conditions in French camps, nothing about U.S. camps
recently visited by star reporter Drew Middleton.

October 10: Littlejohn writes a report to Eisenhower pointing out food
surplus in U.S. Army and suggests sending food to U.S.

1945-6 The U.S. winds down prisoner holdings to almost zero by the end of
1946. The French continue holding hundreds of thousands through 1946,
gradually reducing their holdings to nothing by about 1949.

1947-1950s Most records of U.S. prison camps are destroyed. Germans
determine that over 1,700,000 soldiers, alive at wars end, have never
returned home. All Allies deny responsibility; the U.S., Britain and
France accuse Russia of atrocities in camps.

1960s-1972 The West German Foreign Office under Willy Brandt subsidizes
books which deny atrocities in U.S. camps, U.S. senators accuse Russians
of atrocities, but say nothing of U.S. camps.

1980s The ICRC refuses to release essential documents to researchers
working on U.S. and French camps, and claims no knowledge of Pradervand,
who was their chief delegate in France. The ICRC admits two other
researchers into the archives to look for material on Nazi death camps.
The Ministry of Defence in the UK refuses to release the important
Phillimore Report to author, although requested to do so by a British
cabinet officer. Willy Brandt refuses to discuss his role in censoring and
subsidizing books that hid U.S. atrocities.





From oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!unixg.ubc.ca!vanbc.wimsey.com!scipio.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!pipex!uunet!newstf01.cr1.aol.com!newsbf01.news.aol.com!not-for-mail Tue Oct 25 09:56:44 PDT 1994
Article: 18049 of alt.revisionism
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!unixg.ubc.ca!vanbc.wimsey.com!scipio.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!pipex!uunet!newstf01.cr1.aol.com!newsbf01.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: wmmichael@aol.com (Wm Michael)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Fisher on Bacque
Date: 23 Oct 1994 10:13:05 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 78
Sender: news@newsbf01.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <38dr1h$p2@newsbf01.news.aol.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf01.news.aol.com

FORWARD (pp. xix-xxi) from _Other Losses_

OVER MOST OF THE WESTERN FRONT in late April 1945, the thunder of
artillery had been replaced by the shuffling of millions of pairs of boots
as columns of disarmed German soldiers marched wearily towards Allied
barbed wire enclosures. Scattered enemy detachments fired a few volleys
before fading into the countryside and eventual capture by Allied
soldiers.
	The mass surrenders in the west contrasted markedly with the final
weeks on the eastern front where surviving Wehrmacht units still fought
the advancing Red Army to enable as many of their comrades as possible to
evade capture by the Russians.
	This was the final strategy of the German High Command then under
Grand Admiral Doenitz who had been designated Commander-in-Chief by Adolf
Hitler following Reich Marshal Goerings surrender to the west.
	From the German point of view this strategy delivered millions of
German soldiers to what they believed would be the more merciful hands of
the Western Allies under supreme military commander General Dwight
Eisenhower. However, given General Eisenhower's fierce and obsessive
hatred not only of the Nazi regime, but indeed of all things German, this
belief was at best a desperate gamble. More than five million German
soldiers in the American and French zones were crowded into barbed wire
cages, many of them literally shoulder to shoulder. The ground beneath
them soon became a quagmire of filth and disease. Open to the weather,
lacking even primitive sanitary facilities, underfed, the prisoners soon
began dying of starvation and disease. Starting in April 1945, the United
States Army and the French army casually annihilated about one million
men, most of them in American camps. Not since the horrors of the
Confederate-administered prison at Andersonville during the American Civil
War had such cruelties taken place under American military control. For
more than four decades this unprecedented tragedy lay hidden in Allied
archives.
	How at last did this enormous war crime come to light? The first
clues were uncovered in 1986 by the author James Bacque and his assistant.
Researching a book about Raoul Laporterie, a French Resistance hero who
had saved about 1,600 refugees from the Nazis, they interviewed a former
German soldier who had become a friend of Laporterie in 1946. Laporterie
had taken this man, Hans Goertz, and one other, out of a French prison
camp in 1946 to give them work as tailors in his chain of stores. Goertz
declared that Laporterie saved my life, because 25 percent of the men in
that camp died in one month. What had they died of? Starvation,
dysentery, disease.
	Checking as far as possible the records of the camps where Goertz
had been confined, Bacque found that it had been one of a group of three
in a system of 1,600, all equally bad, according to ICRC reports in the
French army archives at Vincennes, Paris. Soon they came upon the first
hard evidence of mass deaths in U.S.-controlled camps. This evidence was
found in army reports under the bland heading Other Losses. The terrible
significance of this term was soon explained to Bacque by Colonel Philip
S. Lauben, a former chief of the German Affairs Branch of SHAEF.
	In the spring of 1987, Mr. Bacque and I met in Washington. Over
the following months we worked together in the National Archives and in
the George C. Marshall Foundation in Lexington, Virgin, piecing together
the evidence we uncovered. The plans made at the highest levels of the
U.S. and British governments in 1944 expressed a determination to destroy
Germany as a world power once and for all by reducing her to a peasant
economy, although this would mean the starvation of millions of civilians.
Up until now, historians have agreed that the Allied leaders soon canceled
their destructive plans because of public resistance.
	Eisenhowers hatred, passed through the lens of a compliant
military bureaucracy, produced the horror of death camps unequaled by
anything in American military history. In the face of the catastrophic
consequences of this hatred, the casual indifference expressed by the
SHAEF officers is the most painful aspect of the U.S. Armys involvement.
	Nothing was further from the intent of the great majority of
Americans in 1945 than to kill off so many unarmed Germans after the war.
Some idea of the magnitude of this horror can be gained when it is
realized that these deaths exceed by far all those incurred by the German
in the west between June 1941 and April 1945. In the narrative that
follows the veil is drawn from this tragedy.

DR. ERNEST F. FISHER, JR., COLONEL
ARMY OF THE UNITED STATES (RETIRED)
ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA 1988

(Dr. Fisher is the former Senior Military Historian of the United States
Army.)



From oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!zip.eecs.umich.edu!caen!spool.mu.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!swiss.ans.net!newstf01.cr1.aol.com!newsbf01.news.aol.com!not-for-mail Fri Oct 28 07:28:01 PDT 1994
Article: 18159 of alt.revisionism
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!zip.eecs.umich.edu!caen!spool.mu.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!swiss.ans.net!newstf01.cr1.aol.com!newsbf01.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: wmmichael@aol.com (Wm Michael)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Ausrotten
Date: 26 Oct 1994 17:19:05 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 47
Sender: news@newsbf01.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <38mh49$gad@newsbf01.news.aol.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf01.news.aol.com

I post the following for discussion purposes on the word ausrotten.

- - - - - - - - - -

The term *ausrotten*, said Christie, has been represented to mean
"extermination" in the literal sense. Have you examined that word in its
context in the various speeches of Adolf Hitler?

   "I am very fluent in the German language, having lived in that country
for a long time and having read, of course, millions of words in the
German language in context, said Irving. "There is no doubt that in
modern Germany the word *ausrotten* now means murder. But we have to look
at the meaning of the word *ausrotten*  in the 1930s and the 1940s, as
used by those who wrote or spoke these documents. in the mouth of Adolf
Hitler, the word *ausrotten*  is never once used to mean murder, and Ive
made a particular study of that particular semantic problem. You can find
document after document which Hitler himself spoke or wrote where the word
*ausrotten*  cannot possibly mean murder. I can give one or two examples
briefly. In August 1936, Hitler dictated the famous memorandum on the four
year plan which contains the phrase if the Bolsheviks succeed in entering
Germany, it will lead to the *ausrotten*  of the German people. Now,
clearly, he doesnt mean that if the Bolsheviks invade Germany it will
lead to the murder of 50 million Germans. He is saying it will lead to the
end of Germany as a national state, as a power, as a factor, an end of the
German people. He says the same to the Czechoslovakian President Emil
Hacha, on March the 15th, 1939. Hacha has just signed away
Czechoslovakias independence in a midnight session with Hitler and Hitler
says to him afterwards, It is a good thing that you signed because
otherwise it would have meant the *ausrotten*  of the Czechoslovakian
people. Hitler didnt mean, If you hadnt signed, I would have had to
kill 8 million Czechs. What he is saying [is], If you hadnt signed, I
would have ended Czechoslovakias existence as a separate country. There
are various other examples of that and I defy anybody to find the meaning
of the word differently sued by Adolf Hitler to mean the word murder.
This is the kind of analysis which unfortunately the academic historians
have not bothered to conduct. (33-9377, 9378)

DAVID IRVING

[David Irving testified as the twenty-third and final witness in the
Zuendel trial on Friday, April 22nd, Monday, April 25 and Tuesday, April
26, 1988.]
pp. 370-371 Did Six Million Really Die? Report of the Evidence in the
Canadian False News Trial of Ernst Zuendel - 1988.





From oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!zip.eecs.umich.edu!yeshua.marcam.com!usc!howland.reston.ans.net!news.sprintlink.net!EU.net!uunet!world!bzs Fri Oct 28 09:54:44 PDT 1994
Article: 18189 of alt.revisionism
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!zip.eecs.umich.edu!yeshua.marcam.com!usc!howland.reston.ans.net!news.sprintlink.net!EU.net!uunet!world!bzs
From: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein)
Subject: Re: Ausrotten
In-Reply-To: wmmichael@aol.com's message of 26 Oct 1994 17:19:05 -0400
Message-ID: 
Sender: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein)
Organization: The World
References: <38mh49$gad@newsbf01.news.aol.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 1994 22:31:39 GMT
Lines: 84


From: wmmichael@aol.com (Wm Michael)
>In August 1936, Hitler dictated the famous memorandum on the four
>year plan which contains the phrase if the Bolsheviks succeed in entering
>Germany, it will lead to the *ausrotten*  of the German people. Now,
>clearly, he doesnt mean that if the Bolsheviks invade Germany it will
>lead to the murder of 50 million Germans.

No? Why doesn't it? What's so clear about this?

No doubt he's speaking somewhat metaphorically and maybe doesn't
literally mean every single one of 50M Germans will be killed, but I
think it's pretty clear that he's trying to make the point that
something close to that will happen.

After all, this is the guy who besieged Leningrad until something like
1M people starved to death. Or did the Siege of Leningrad not happen
also (my number, which may be wrong, aside.)

Hitler really killed people like crazy, whatever his rationale, don't
try to appeal to the common sensibilities of your average person or
even average politician, it doesn't apply here. That he expected the
same from those he perceived as his enemies isn't in the least bit
surprising.

We're rapidly going from the specific fantasy that Hitler never
purposely harmed a Jew or Gypsy to the much broader fantasy that
Hitler was a harmless, nice guy and if he said something like
"ausrotten" then *surely* he meant nothing by it...

YOW!

>He says the same to the Czechoslovakian President Emil Hacha, on March
>the 15th, 1939. Hacha has just signed away Czechoslovakias
>independence in a midnight session with Hitler and Hitler says to him
>afterwards, It is a good thing that you signed because otherwise
>it would have meant the *ausrotten* of the Czechoslovakian
>people. Hitler didnt mean, If you hadnt signed, I
>would have had to kill 8 million Czechs. What he is saying [is],
>If you hadnt signed, I would have ended Czechoslovakias
>existence as a separate country.

This analysis is completely insane.

Let's see, Hacha is signing over the independence of Czechoslovakia.

Hitler says, on his signing, it's a good thing you did this because
otherwise it would have meant the end of your country's independence?

No, you dumbkopf, that doesn't even make the tiniest bit of sense.

He meant or else he would have killed them all, more or less.

This is obvious stuff and proves quite the opposite. I can't believe
anyone would see it otherwise.

Something to keep clear is that the first person who understood Hitler
and his buddies was Fritz Lang (director of Metropolis, I hope I have
that name right.)

Lang, a German, made a movie in the mid '30s depicting Hitler and his
Nazis as 1930's Chicago-style mobsters of the Al Capone variety. In
retrospect he was right on the mark in terms of the mentality. I
believe he had to flee Germany over this film, it got Hitler pretty
angry even tho you have to read between the lines to see that he's
talking about the Nazis. Well, it's pretty obvious, but he doesn't
*quite* come out and say it.

Interesting too because the 1930's mobsters were contemporaries of
Hitler's et al. No accident, that.

Now, in that light, if Al Capone or Bugsy Siegel said ``if dey don't
giv'us whad we want den extoiminate dem'' do you think they *really*
meant clean and press their suits?

I don't think so.

I think you're way beyond desparate on this issue.

-- 
        -Barry Shein

Software Tool & Die    | bzs@world.std.com          | uunet!world!bzs
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202        | Login: 617-739-WRLD


Article 18251 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!torn!howland.reston.ans.net!agate!agate!maverick
From: maverick@cork.CS.Berkeley.EDU (Vance Maverick)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Ausrotten
Date: 27 Oct 1994 02:17:09 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Lines: 28
Distribution: world
Message-ID: 
References: <38mh49$gad@newsbf01.news.aol.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: cork.cs.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: wmmichael@aol.com's message of 26 Oct 1994 17:19:05 -0400

In article <38mh49$gad@newsbf01.news.aol.com> wmmichael@aol.com (Wm Michael) writes:
[quoting Irving:]
> In August 1936, Hitler dictated the famous memorandum on the four
> year plan which contains the phrase `if the Bolsheviks succeed in entering
> Germany, it will lead to the *ausrotten*  of the German people.' Now,
> clearly, he doesn't mean that if the Bolsheviks invade Germany it will
> lead to the murder of 50 million Germans.

Oh?  If he did mean it, it would be a rhetorical exaggeration, but is
a rhetorical exaggeration impossible in this case?  Maybe he really
wants his readers to believe that a Communist invasion would mean mass
slaughter -- and as Wayne McGuire could tell you, such a fear turned
out not to be without foundation.

> Hacha has just signed away
> Czechoslovakia's independence in a midnight session with Hitler and Hitler
> says to him afterwards, `It is a good thing that you signed because
> otherwise it would have meant the *ausrotten*  of the Czechoslovakian
> people'. Hitler didn't mean, `If you hadn't signed, I would have had to
> kill 8 million Czechs.'

Why not?  It seems that to accept Irving's conclusion, we must already
agree with him that Hitler was a nice guy and a graceful victor.  Why
*wouldn't* Hitler rub Hacha's nose in the fact of defeat?

Analysis, indeed.

	Vance


Article 18305 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!zip.eecs.umich.edu!panix!ddsw1!godot.cc.duq.edu!news.duke.edu!news-feed-1.peachnet.edu!gatech!howland.reston.ans.net!swiss.ans.net!newstf01.cr1.aol.com!newsbf01.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: wmmichael@aol.com (Wm Michael)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Picking at Scabs
Date: 29 Oct 1994 21:18:03 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 36
Sender: news@newsbf01.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <38us8b$ru7@newsbf01.news.aol.com>
References: 
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf01.news.aol.com

In article , rsavage@netcom.com (Rick
Savage) writes:

>     Judeo-Christian is an oxymoron.  The two are black and white, oil 
>and water, fire and ice to each other.  Opposites that cannot co-exist.  
>Once cancels out the other.

In this regard one might note:

	The current expression Judaeo-Christian is an error which has
altered the course of universal history by the confusion it has sown in
men's minds, if by it one is meant to understand the Jewish origin of
Christianity; for by abolishing the fundamental distinctions between
Jewish and Christian messianism * a valuable discipline at all levels of
thought * and reduces it to a purely confessional messianism, preoccupied
like Christian messianism with the salvation of the individual soul. If
the term Judaeo-Christian does point to a common origin, there is no
doubt that it is a most dangerous idea. It is based on a contradiction in
adjecto which has set the path of history on the wrong track. It links in
one breath two ideas which are completely irreconcilable, it seeks to
demonstrate that there is no difference between day and night or hot and
cold or black and white, and thus introduces a fatal element of confusion
to a basis on which some, nevertheless, are endeavoring to construct a
civilisation. Christianity offers to the world a limited messianism which
it wishes to impose as the only valid one Even Spinoza, who was further
than any other thinker from the historic messianism of Israel, wrote: As
for what certain churches say, that God assumed human nature. I must
confess that this seems to me as absurd as saying that a circle assumed
the shape of a square.
	The dogmatic exclusiveness professed by Christianity must finally
end. It is the obstinate Christian claim to be the sole heir to Israel
which propagates anti-Semitism. This scandal must terminate sooner or
later; the sooner it does, the sooner the world will be rid of the tissue
of lies in which anti-Semitism shrouds itself. (Joshua Jehouda:
l'Antisemitisme Miroir du Monde, pp. 135-136)



Article 18313 of alt.revisionism:
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!news.kei.com!world!bzs
From: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein)
Subject: Re: Picking at Scabs
In-Reply-To: wmmichael@aol.com's message of 29 Oct 1994 21:18:03 -0400
Message-ID: 
Sender: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein)
Organization: The World
References:  <38us8b$ru7@newsbf01.news.aol.com>
Date: Sun, 30 Oct 1994 02:56:27 GMT
Lines: 13


Until I meet someone who I believe might be idiotic enough to consider
Mr Michael's ravings seriously I don't believe it needs any response.

I'd also like to know what Mr Michael believes this has to do with the
topic of the list. But no doubt he saw some holocaust deniers here and
figured it was just open season on Jews.

-- 
        -Barry Shein

Software Tool & Die    | bzs@world.std.com          | uunet!world!bzs
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202        | Login: 617-739-WRLD


Article 18393 of alt.revisionism:
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!unixg.ubc.ca!news.bc.net!vanbc.wimsey.com!scipio.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!news.sprintlink.net!EU.net!uunet!world!bzs
From: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein)
Subject: Re: A revisionist defines "anti-semite"
In-Reply-To: wmmichael@aol.com's message of 29 Oct 1994 10:27:04 -0400
Message-ID: 
Sender: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein)
Organization: The World
References: <38pu7e$g0v@newsbf01.news.aol.com> <38tm3o$i38@newsbf01.news.aol.com>
Date: Sat, 29 Oct 1994 20:25:38 GMT
Lines: 10


Mr Michael, I will make this rather simple: You are insane.

Thank you for your attention.

-- 
        -Barry Shein

Software Tool & Die    | bzs@world.std.com          | uunet!world!bzs
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202        | Login: 617-739-WRLD


Article 18407 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!unixg.ubc.ca!news.mic.ucla.edu!library.ucla.edu!news.ucdavis.edu!agate!agate!maverick
From: maverick@beech.cs.berkeley.edu (Vance Maverick)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: A revisionist defines "anti-semite"
Date: 29 Oct 1994 18:51:58 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Lines: 51
Distribution: world
Message-ID: 
References: <38pu7e$g0v@newsbf01.news.aol.com> <38tm3o$i38@newsbf01.news.aol.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: beech.cs.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: wmmichael@aol.com's message of 29 Oct 1994 10:27:04 -0400

In article <38tm3o$i38@newsbf01.news.aol.com> wmmichael@aol.com (Wm Michael) writes:
> The Jewish author Joseph Dunner, in his The Republic of Israel,
> gives the assurance that the Jews regard Christ as the `Symbol of
> anti-Semitism'.

OK, I've got the book now, and I have a couple of questions.

(1) In context, Dunner appears to be talking about the historical
development of Christianity and its institutional attitude toward the
Jews.  Your phrase comes from p. 10 of the 1950 McGraw-Hill edition:

	To Jews from the fourth century on, Jesus became the symbol of
	anti-Semitism, of libel, of cruelty, of violent death.

followed by pages on the slaughter of Jews in the Crusades and other
anti-Semitic acts carried out in the name of Christianity.  I take his
meaning to be that the Church inculcated anti-Semitism.  This is
pretty plainly true, I think; do you disagree?

Lest there be any question of Dunner's trying to move Jews to acts
against Christianity, he writes (footnote, p. 8):

	The following lines are not altogether favorable to the
	Catholic Church and Christianity as a whole.  I wish
	sincerely that I did not have to put them into this
	account.  But they are a matter of record, and to leave
	them out would prevent a real understanding of the
	Jewish position in the Christian-Western world.  I want
	to emphasize that I am dealing with the past.  [....]

Now the complicity of the Church in what happened during the '30s and
'40s might have justified his arguing that institutional Christian
anti-Semitism was alive and well (I say this as something of a
Christian myself); but instead he explicitly disavows the wide scope
of hatred which your selective quotation implies.

(2) Even if your three-word quote is representative of Dunner, is
there any reason to believe anyone else took him seriously, agreed
with him, or acted on this belief?

(3) Why do you bring this up on alt.revisionism, unless it be to prove
that "revisionists" are more interested in playing race-politics than
discussing history?

> Runes states `Christian faith is not anti-Semitic; it is
> anti-Semitism itself.'

Which Runes?  Where?  Are you talking about Dagobert Runes, author of
_The Jew and the Cross_?  (promising title....NOT!)

	Vance

Home ·  Site Map ·  What's New? ·  Search Nizkor