The Nizkor Project: Remembering the Holocaust (Shoah)

Shofar FTP Archive File: people/p//porter.carlos/

Newsgroups: alt.revisionism,soc.history
Subject: Holocaust Almanac - Precise refutation of denial propaganda
Summary: In her devasting rebuttal of a post from Dan Gannon's hate machine
         written by "George Martin," (widely believed to be an alias for
         Gannon himself, although we'll never know - Gannon denies the 
         allegation, but then, during the period B-CPU was connected to the
         net, Gannon even denied being himself), Chana Braun demonstrates
         the techniques of deception often used by Holocaust deniers.
Followup-To: alt.revisionism
Organization: The Old Frog's Almanac, Vancouver Island, CANADA

Archive/File: orgs/american/oregon/banished.cpu
Last-Modified: 1993/10/24

In light of Dan Gannon's increased activity here on the net, I thought
it would be instructive to provide new users with a pristine example of
the nature of denial assertions, along with a devastating refutation
from Chana Braun.

The messages included below, originally published by Kineahora in two parts, have been concatenated for simplicity.

"George Martin," widely believed to be Dan Gannon himself, posting under
a pseudonymn, provided the usual denial fodder, while Chana Braun
demonstrated (to put it mildly) how dishonest denial "research" can be,
and how it often utilizes deliberate deception and falsehoods, on the
assumption that most folks simply don't have the time and/or resources
to research their work.

My apologies to Chana Braun for getting a few paragraphs concatenated
without meaning to - some teething pains with EMACS created problems for me,
with regard to document formatting. This may have resulted in some of
Chana'a paragraphs being run-together, although their position in the text
has not been altered. knm.

From: (Chana - Braun)
Newsgroups: alt.activism,alt.censorship,talk.politics.misc

Message-ID: <>
Date: 23 May 92 02:54:30 GMT
Article-I.D.: cup.59461
Organization: The Portal System (TM)

                      THE EXPOSURE OF GEORGE MARTIN 
                                 PART I 

George Martin says: 

> I will quote some of the unbelievable testimony given at the Nurenberg 
> trials.  Much of the information comes from the book "Made in Russia, 
> The Holocaust", by Carlos Whitlock Porter.  

> All documents and exhibits were introduced into evidence under the laws 
> of Communists countries.  

   Yet, does he indeed quote from TESTIMONY and produce documents and
   exhibits that were introduced into EVIDENCE?  Perhaps George Martin
   could have found a more productive use of his time....such as looking
   up the words which I capitalized!  Let's take a look at what George
   Martin claims is TESTIMONY and what has been introduced into

> Document 3311-PS.  
> "The German authorities acting under the authority of Governor General 
> Dr.  Hans Frank established in March 1942 the extermination camp at 
> Terblinka, intended for mass killing of Jews by suffocating them in 
> steam-filled chambers." 

> "The best known of these death camps are those of Treblinka, Belezc and 
> Soliber /in the Lubin district/.  In these camps the Jews were put to
> death by the thousands by hitherto unknown new methods, gas and steam 
> chambers as well as electric current employed on a large scale." 
> The techinical details are described in great detail.  But by 1946 all 
> this had been forgotten (except for the gas).  

   Because of the notation of "Document 3311-PS", I can only assume that
   this is one of those documents that George believes was introduced
   into evidence.  After all, with such a designation, he certainly
   cannot think that it was testimony, can he?  Okay, what is 3311-PS?
   The summary immediately after the document number says: "CHARGE
   NUMBER 6 of the Polish government against Hans Frank: Mass murders of
   Jews systematically carried out at the extermination camp of
   Treblinka.  Established 1942; description of atrocities there
   perpetrated; Frank's responsibility for these crimes." 

   This is laughable, isn't it.  George Martin just quoted from the
   CHARGES that were made against Hans Frank!  In other words, this is
   what the prosecution was stating that they were going to PROVE and
   not the proof itself!  And what about George's claim that everything
   he was posting was "evidence under the laws of Communists countries?"
   Well, if 3311-PS really were such evidence, then Communist countries
   must be in pretty good company.  After all, 3311-PS is also called
   USA-293!  Yes, dear readers, this was submitted by the United States
   of America!  George, a word to the wise, read the small print and
   don't believe everything that you read in books published by
   Historical Review Press!  All of what I've disclosed can be found on
   page 2 of the source you cite!

                      THE EXPOSURE OF GEORGE MARTIN 
                                PART II 

George Martin says: 

> Document 3319-PS.  
> "Special electrical appliances for the mass murder of the doomed, 
> crematoria, and also Zyklon banks.".  " was in 1942 that the 
> special electrical appliances were built for mass extermination of 
> people.  Under the pretex that the people were being led to the bath- 
> house, the doomed were undressed and then driven to the building where 
> the floor was electrified in a special way; there they were killed." 
> Doesn't sound like the usual story we hear about gas coming out of the 
> shower heads does it?  

> "The Belzec camp is built underground.  It is an electric crematorium.  
> There are two halls in the underground buildings.  People were taken out 
> of the railway cars into the first hall.  Then they were led naked to the 
> second hall.  Here the floor resembled an enormous plate.  When the crowd 
> of men stood on it, the floor sank deep into a pool of water.  The moment 
> the men sank up to their necks, a powerful electric current of millions 
> of volts was passed through, killing them all at once.  The floor rose 
> again, and a second electric current was passed through the bodies, 
> burning them until nothing was left of the victims save a few ashes."

   Now this document is also known as GB-287.  That's right, folks, it
   was presented by Great Britain!  I wonder if George Martin believes
   that the American Revolutionary War was fought against the Red
   Menance?  So, right off, we know that this is not one of the
   documents submitted by the "Communist countries" and have to wonder
   why Carlos Whitlock Porter included it in his book whose title claims
   that the Holocaust was an invention of the Russians.  What is so
   incredibly funny, though, is that the above quote is NOT from
   3319-PS!  You see, Porter's book is nothing more than copies of
   certain pages taken out of the IMT.  At the bottom of page 7 of
   Porter's book (which is a photocopy of IMT XXXII page 158), we find
   the heading for 3319-PS.  However, Mr.  Martin's first paragraph of
   quotes come from pp 8-9 which are copies of pp 576-577 of IMT VII!
   So, in this case, Mr.  Martin is attempting to make his readers
   believe that the above quotes are part of the documents which were
   submitted as EVIDENCE when, in fact, this is not even part of ANY

   What is it then?  Could it be TESTIMONY?  Not at all.  That first
   paragraph one of the presentations of one of the prosecuting
   attorneys but there is no indication in Porter's book as to WHICH
   attorney is speaking!  I wonder if Mr.  Martin realizes that speeches
   by attorneys are not considered EVIDENCE?  If not, then how does he
   have the audacity to belittle the justice system in Communist
   countries?  What about the second paragraph of the above quote?  I
   can tell you that it is NOT part of 3319-PS and that such a quote is
   not part of the pages of IMT VII 576-577 nor is it located anywhere
   near that portion of Porter's book.  In fact, I have yet to find that
   exact quote!  All I know for certain is that it is NOT what George
   Martin claims it to be.  

                      THE EXPOSURE OF GEORGE MARTIN 
                               PART III 

George Martin says: 

> A quote by Mr.  Justice Jackson; "Now, I have certain information, which 
> was placed in my hands, of an experiment which was carried out near 
> Auschwitz...  The purpose of the experiment was to find a quick and 
> complete way of destroying people without the delay and trouble of 
> shooting and gassing and burning, as it had been carried out, and this 
> was the experiment...A small village was provisionally erected, with 
> temporary stuctures, and in it approximately 20,000 Jews were put.  By 
> means of this newly invented weapon of destruction, these 20,000 people 
> were eradicated almost instantaneously, and in such a way that there 
> was no trace." This quote was made after mention of experiments by the 
> Nazis in atomic energy.  This was supposed to mean the Nazis blasted 
> them to kingdom come by atomic bombs.  

   Of course this did not happen.  What a fanciful imagination Mr.
   Martin has.  Once again, this is Mr.  Justice Jackson speaking.  That
   makes this neither TESTIMONY nor EVIDENCE, doesn't it?  But what
   about Mr.  Martin's characterization of this excerpt?  Have any of
   you wondered why he didn't quote the "mention of experiments by the
   Nazis in atomic energy" and only told you that that was what had just
   been discussed and, therefore, to what Mr.  Justice Jackson (an
   American, BTW) was referring?  Let's see if we can figure it out,
   shall we?  

   "Q [Jackson]: And certain experiments were also conducted and certain
   researches conducted in atomic energy, were they not?  

   "A [Speer]: We had not got as far as that, unfortunately, because the
   finest experts we had in atomic research had emigrated to America,
   and this had thrown us back a great deal in our research, so that we
   still needed another year or two in order to achieve any results in
   the splitting of the atom.

   "Q: The policy of driving people out who didn't agree with Germany
   hadn't produced very good dividends, had it?  

   "A: Especially in this sphere it was a great disadvantage to us."

   Then we find the above quote that Mr.  Martin used.  Now, what could
   Jackson mean if he really accepted Speer's answers about the
   splitting of the atom by the Nazis as he seems to have done?  Well,
   let's look at Speer's testimony immediately BEFORE this part.  

   "SPEER: No, that is an error.  Actually, ordinary gas evaporates at
   normal atmospheric temperature.  This gas would not evaporate until
   very high temperatures were reached and such very high temperatures
   could only be produced by an explosion; in other words, when the
   explosives detonated, a very high temperature set in, as you know,
   and then the gas evaporated.  The solid substance turned into gas,
   but the effects had nothing to do with the high temperature.  

   "JACKSON: Experiments were carried out with this gas, were they not,
   to your knowledge?

   "A: That I can tell you.  Experiments must certainly have been
   carried out with it.  

   "Q: Who was in charge of the experimentations with the gases?  

   "A: As far as I know it was the research and development department
   of the OKH in the Army ordnance office.  I cannot tell you for

   It seems then, that Jackson was getting back to these experiments or,
   at least, phrasing a question concerning the method or means that
   would have been employed to destroy the village.  Yet, Mr.  Martin
   puts a period at the end of his quote (i.e.  after "and in such a way
   that there was no trace") when, in reality, he should have placed a
   "..." since this was not the end of Jackson's question.  From
   Porter's book, other than the lack of the period after "trace," it is
   impossible to ascertain what Jackson's full question could have been.
   You see, Porter then skips in the book from IMT XVI p.  529 to IMT X
   p 199!

                              PART IV 

George Martin says: 

> On 14 Jan 1945, Herr Babel testified that, "I performed many autopsies 
> on people either shot or beaten to death at their work (at the camps), 
> and made official reports on the cause of death." In other words, they 
> would shoot them and then try to find out what caused them to die?  
> Sounds crazy to me.  

   Well, at least Mr.  Martin has finally quotes some TESTIMONY....too
   bad that testimony wasn't that of "Herr Babel" as he claims, though,
   isn't it?  You see, Herr Babel was an ATTORNEY for the DEFENSE!  I
   guess this must mean that Mr.  Martin thinks that the German
   attorneys for the defense were really from "Communist countries,"
   huh?  The testimony was that of Blaha.  And does it really sound
   strange that autopisies would have been performed on people "either
   shot or beaten to death?" Maybe it does to Mr.  Martin since it is so
   obvious that he knows so little....and his reading skills are
   abominable.  But, let's look at one of the primary documents and the
   "strangeness" suddenly disappears.  

   26 October 1942 
   SS Judge at Reichsfuehrer-SS and Chief of German Police 
   RE: Judging the unauthorized shooting of Jews.  

   To the SS Court Head Office Munich I have spoken to the
   Reichsfuehrer-SS about this important matter.  The Reichsfuehrer-SS
   has come to the following decision: The most important factor to
   consider when deciding whether and how to punish men for shooting
   Jews who have not been ordered or authorized to do so is the motive
   for this action.

   (1) Execution for purely political motives shall result in no
   punishment, unless punishment is necessary for the purpose of
   maintaining order.  If the latter is the case, according to the case
   in question the defendant should be judged under section 92 or 142 of
   the MStGB, or some other disciplinary punishment should be enforced.

   (2) Men acting out of self-seeking, sadistic or sexual motives should
   be punished by a court of law and, where applicable, on charges of
   murder or manslaughter.  Court personnel and courts involved in such
   cases are asked duly to note these guidelines.  


   Now, is it reasonable to assume that the above document and Blaha's
   autopsies might be related?  Certainly.  From a section that Mr.
   Martin did NOT quote: "BLAHA: The bodies were brought to me from the
   place of work and it was my duty to ascertain the cause of death;
   that the men had been beaten to death, for example, that the skull or
   ribs had been fractured, that the man had died of internal
   hemorrhage, or that he had been shot; I had to make an offical report
   on the cause of death.  Sometimes, but this was rare, when an
   investigation was conducted, I was called in as witness." 

> It was also stated that in Kiev the Nazis "invented the following 
> method of murder: Several Soviet prisoners would be forced to climb a 
> tree and others had to saw it down.  The prisoners would fall togeather 
> with the tree and be killed.".  What an efficient way to do people in!  
> Why would they fool with gas when such a foolproof and trouble free way 
> to kill could be used?  

   Where is the EVIDENCE and TESTIMONY that Mr.  Martin promised us?
   Again this is nothing more than a prosecuting attorney's courtroom

> On 18 Feb 45, it was said that the Germans invented "...a machine for 
> grinding human bones.  Next to the machine stands the prisoner of war 
> who feeds the machine.  It can grind the bones of 200 persons at a time.
> As has been proved to the commission, it has a constant yield of 200 
> cubic meters of bone flour." Not suprisingly, this photo and all the 
> other photos given during this testimony, have disappeared. I by 
> chance have talked to a GI who was shown a supposed "bone crusher". He 
> happened to work with heavy equiptment and knew that it was a common 
> rock crusher.  Just think of all those that took this lie at face 
> value.  

   Once again, this is not EVIDENCE but a statement made by an attorney.
   As far as Mr.  Martin's GI friend, perhaps Mr.  Martin would like to
   put his head into a rock crusher!  The fact that someone has seen
   such a machine and a rock crusher could certainly be used as a bone
   grinder, does not make the attorney's statement suspect.  In fact, it
   lends credence to it!


George Martin says: 

> Mr.  Goldsman, an inhabitant of Lvov testified, "At Auschwitz the most 
> beautiful women were set apart, artificially fertilized, and then 
> gassed." Why on earth would they do that?  

   Shall I assume that Mr.  Martin is asking a sincere question?  If so,
   it deserves a sincere answer.  Well, even if he isn't sincere, there
   are others out there who might be wondering the same thing.
   Therefore, I will answer.  There were two types of eugenic
   experiments being conducted at Auschwtiz by Dr.  Claus.  First, there
   were sterilization experiments with X-Rays.  Also, there were
   experiments on how to create a higher fertility rate.  These
   "positive" eugenic experiments were not to benefit the Jews but to
   benefit the German people.  However, human experimentation could not
   be done on German Frauen so the inmates at Auschwitz were used
   instead.  Perhaps Mr.  Martin should do some actual research into
   this time instead of quoting out of context material that is other
   than what he claims it is.  

> Pictures were shown of "Torture cabinets".  "Iron cupboards which were 
> specially manufactured by the firm of Krupp to torture Russian civilian 
> workers to an extent that cannot possibly be described by
> words,...frequently even two people were kicked and pressed into one 
> compartment.  At the top of the cupboard there are a few sievelike air 
> holes through which cold water was poured on the unfortunate victims 
> during the ice-cold winter." Here after came one of the few objections 
> from Speer, "what is pictured here is quite a normal locker as was used 
> in every factory.  These photos have absolutely no value as evidence." 
> This seems to be a standard procedure during the trials; pick almost 
> any everyday object and make up horrible stories about its 
> use to kill people.  I suppose you have to do that when there are no 
> "real" items to show.  

   Mr.  Martin would have us believe that the Nuremberg Trials were
   extremely unfair and unjust because of things such as the above.
   Yet, doesn't every trial here in the US have evidence introduced
   which is disputed?  Isn't that exactly what the above represents?
   Isn't it amazing that with all the claims that the Nazis were
   tortured to spew forth whatever the Allies wanted them to say, that
   Speer somehow managed not only to refute the Allies but also to be
   given a rather light sentence?  

> Many of the affidavits were signed by a witness whose veracity, 
> credibility, and existence are left unproven.  The 'statement' may be 
> entirely typewritten, INCLUDING the signature! Typically, it is a 
> 'certified true copy' of an orginal whose whereabouts are unknown, even 
> today.  

   Aw, the famous "unsubstantiated statement" that is so common from
   B-CPU!  Isn't it too bad that copiers didn't exist back then?  Then
   all these documents could have been copied instead of retyped
   whenever another copy was needed.  And, are the originals no where to
   be found?  Isn't that incredible to believe?  Yes, it is.  The
   originals are stored in various archives.  

> Much of the testimony was from Russian sources. Document 165-l.  
> "...from 1943, fearing retribution for their crimes...the Hitlerites 
> began to destroy the traces of their crimes.  They exumed and burned 
> corpses, ground bones, and strewed the ashes on the fields; they also 
> used the slag formed by the corpses cremated, as well as the bone 
> flour, for repairing the roads and fertlizing the fields." Repairing 
> the roads?  What do they mean by 'slag'?  This was not an iron foundry.  
> We now know, by admission of the Russians, that many of these stories 
> were made up to cover up their slaughters and blame it on the Germans 
> (the Katyn forest massacre for one.  The Germans tried to tell the world 
> about how the Russians did the killing even before the end of the war, 
> but no one would listen to them.  Now the Russians admit to it).  Page 
> after page was devoted to the Katyn massacre during the trials.  The 
> Russians said the Germans dug up the bodies in Kaytn and put false 
> documents in their pockets to make it look like the Russians did it and 
> then buried them again.  All is proved false now.  

   This is getting to be too funny!  "Much of the testimony was
   from Russian sources" and "Document 165-I" is used to substantiate
   this.  What IS "Document 165-I?" Let me quote from the summary right
   after the document number designation.  "Article on the Jewish food
   situation in German-occupied Poland from the "Polish Fortnightly
   Review" published in London 15 December 1942." It has obviously
   nothing to do with the quote that follows.  But, what makes this
   really funny is that "Document 165-I" is also known as "Exhibit USA-
   287"!  Another document submitted by the United States of America and
   not from a "Russian source" at all!  What about the quote, then?
   Once again, this is an attorney's speech - not evidence or testimony
   at all!  Then, even though Mr.  Martin hasn't presented anything
   about the Katyn Forest Massacres, he continues with the implication
   that because the Russians tried to blame the Nazis for the massacre
   at Nuremberg, that (1) this was believed by the Tribunal; and, (2)
   that all the evidence was of the same calibre.  What is the truth
   about the Katyn Forest Massacre vis a vis the Nuremberg Tribunal?

   "The testimony offered by both sides on July 1 and 2 was anything but
   conclusive; the German witnesses, however, proved far more
   credible...Aside from the fact that the Russians were clearly
   apprehensive about any examination of the affair, and that two of
   their witnesses were of doubtful reliability, the prepondernace of
   circumstantial evidence weighted heavily against them..." ("Justice
   at Nuremberg" by Robert E.  Conot)


George Martin says: 

> Talking about the gassing victims, a Mr. Morgan says, "By means of a 
> special procedure which Wirth had invented, they were burned in the 
> open air without the use of fuel." Too bad this guy is not around 
> today. He could make a 'special' carburator for automobiles that could 
> run on air.  

   What doesn't Mr.  Martin tell us about this excerpt?  First, he
   doesn't tell us that this was a witness for the DEFENSE!  He doesn't
   tell us that he doesn't know how to spell the man's name, either.
   The witness was MorgEn and not MorgAn!  

> On the famous 'human soap', here is one quote, "I boiled the soap out 
> of the bodies of women and men.  The process of boiling alone took 
> several days-from 3 to 7.  During two manufacturing processes, in which 
> I directly participated, more than 25 kilograms (about 55 lbs) of soap 
> were produced.  The amount of human fat necessary for these two 
> processes was 70 to 80 kilograms collected from some 40 bodies." The
> amount of time he states is completely rediculous.  Can you imagine the 
> amount of energy to do such a thing, in comparison to the small amount 
> of finished product.  Another formula stated was, "...(corpses) were put 
> into large metal containers where they were then left for approx.  4 
> months.  Owing to the preservative mixture in which they were stored, 
> this tissue came away from the bones very easily.  The tissue was then 
> put into a boiler about the size of a small kitchen table...After 
> boiling the liquid it was put into white trays about twice the size of 
> a sheet of foolscap and about 3 centimeters deep...Approx.  3 to 
> trayfuls per day were obtained from the machine." Here again a crazy 
> story, why would they just not use the standard method used to make 
> soap from animals?  I guess it would not sound terrible enough.  Several
> other equally strange formulas are also quoted.  Think of all the 
> trouble for such a small reward.  Not like the efficient Germans, I 
> would think.  With one exception, EVERY ONE of the 'human soap ' 
> documents has disappeared.  

   What doesn't Mr.  Martin tell us about these quotes?  The second
   description comes not from the Soviets (although they did present
   this evidence) but directly from John Henry Witton, a soldier of the
   Royal Sussex Regiment who had witnessed the above while a POW!  I
   wish that Mr.  Martin would be so kind as to give us a list of the
   archives he has checked (and/or that Porter has checked) to ascertain
   that these documents no longer exist.  After all, Staeglich (another
   Holocaust Denier) claims that the originals of Himmler's Posen
   speeches do not exist and yet the recordings of them (along with the
   handwritten notes from which Himmler made those speeches and the
   polished transcription of the speeches) are carefully preserved at
   the National Archives in Washington, DC!  From this, I've learned not
   to trust the claims that documents do not exist without further
   statements as to which archives have been investigated.  

> There is an amazing amount of documents that disappeared having to do 
> with the trials.  For something so important, you would think special 
> care would be taken to protect them.  We keep jaywalking records 
> hanging around for years and years.  

   Another favorite trick of Holocaust Deniers.  Let's play "compare
   apples and oranges!" The trials were held in Nuremberg because that
   was the only facility available that was relatively intact!  WWII had
   just ended.  Europe of that day was entirely different than Europe
   (or America) of today.  

> Almost all of the reports on Auschwitz originated from Russian 
> information.  We all know how reliable they are, don't we?  

   Actually, the bulk of the reports on Auschwitz originated from
   official Nazi documentation which was captured by the Americans!
   However, one must wonder if what Mr.  Martin claims has any validity,
   why hasn't he cited a single example above of EVIDENCE or TESTIMONY
   from "Russian information?" Thus far, his cites are inacurrate, from
   the US, Great Britain, or merely attorney speeches.  

> The "confession" of Rudolf Hoess was written entirely in English and 
> partially hand-written by a U.S.  Army officer, without any interpreter, 
> stenographer, lawyer or witnesses.  

   This appears to be somewhat of a contradiction with Mr.  Martin's
   claim that "almost all of the reports on Auschwitz originated from
   Russian information." Or, does Mr.  Martin include that US Army
   officer as a conduit of "Russian information?" 

> The defendents were not allowed to take the stand to contradict 
> the prosecution witness.  
> Testimony was curtailed whenever it was feared someone might 
> contradict a favourite prosecution witness.

   Reality Check: Earlier in this same message, Mr.  Martin said: 

> Pictures were shown of "Torture cabinets".  "Iron cupboards which were 
> specially manufactured by the firm of Krupp to torture Russian civilian 
> workers to an extent that cannot possibly be described by
> words,...frequently even two people were kicked and pressed into one 
> compartment.  At the top of the cupboard there are a few sievelike air 
> holes through which cold water was poured on the unfortunate victims 
> during the ice-cold winter." Here after came one of the few objections 
> from Speer, "what is pictured here is quite a normal locker as was used 
> in every factory.  These photos have absolutely no value as evidence." 
> This seems to be a standard procedure during the trials; pick almost 
> any everyday object and make up horrible stories about its 
> use to kill people.  I suppose you have to do that when there are no 
> "real" items to show.


> Defense attorneys were reprimanded for 'confusing' the witnesses 
> on cross-examination.  

   Who handed out the "reprimand"?  "THE PRESIDENT [of the Tribunal]:
   That is exactly what he said, that these triangles were completely
   mixed up.  

   "M.DUBOST [prosecuting attorney]: I think, that the statement by this
   second witness will definitely enlighten the Tribunal on this point,
   whatever the efforts of the Defense might be to mislead us." 

   Ah ha!  One attorney makes a statement about an opposing attorney!
   Gee, I bet this NEVER happens in an American court of law!  Well, Mr.
   Martin did go on further for more "other items" and more irrelevant,
   non-testimony/non-evidence.  I would expose it all but after all that
   I've done, I think you all have gotten the point.  If, though, there
   is a particular passage in Mr.  Martin's message which I did NOT
   cover and about which you have questions, just let me know and I will
   be more than happy to provide the fallacy of his statement for all
   the readers to see.  

   One more minor point to note, Mr.  Martin began by citing 3311-PS
   which was one of the charges against Hans Frank made by the US.  When
   he first used this document, he did so in such a way that would make
   it appear that it was from a "Communist country." However, it is also
   one of the documents with which he ends his message to "prove" that
   the US should be embarassed about our participation in the Nuremberg
   Tribunal.  Smoke and mirrors, Smoke and mirrors.

Followups to alt.revisionism

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

© The Nizkor Project, 1991-2012

This site is intended for educational purposes to teach about the Holocaust and to combat hatred. Any statements or excerpts found on this site are for educational purposes only.

As part of these educational purposes, Nizkor may include on this website materials, such as excerpts from the writings of racists and antisemites. Far from approving these writings, Nizkor condemns them and provides them so that its readers can learn the nature and extent of hate and antisemitic discourse. Nizkor urges the readers of these pages to condemn racist and hate speech in all of its forms and manifestations.