Talk:The Holocaust/Archive 4

Statistics
What mainstream historians use 6.5 figure? If such fringes are incuded, Reitlinger's ~4 million should be included too. The maximum substantiated estimate is that by Benz, 6,144,839. So I will change the upper bound to 6m.

Murder records
"For example, detailed lists of potential victims were made and maintained using Dehomag statistical machinery, and meticulous records of the killings were produced."

What records? What is the source for this? This gives an impression that most Holocaust murders were meticulously recorded. Either give a source, or this paragraph goes.

Targets
"The victims of the Holocaust were primarily Jews, who were the targets of the Final Solution. However, other groups regarded as undesirable were also persecuted and murdered, including Communists, gay men, Roma and Sinti (also known as gypsies), the mentally ill and the physically disabled, Soviet prisoners of war, Polish, Russian, and other Slavic intelligentsia, political activists, Jehovah's Witnesses, some Catholic and Protestant clergy, trade unionists, psychiatric patients, common criminals and people labeled as "enemies of the state". These victims all perished alongside one another in the camps, according to the extensive documentation left behind by the Nazis themselves (written and photographed), eye-witness testimony (by survivors, perpetrators, and bystanders), and the statistical records of the various countries under occupation."

I suggest using Prof. Richard J. Evans's definition, by which the word Holocaust is used to denote only Jewish victims. Because otherwise Jews can't be said to be its primary targets. E.g. far more Slavic civilians were killed during WWII.

Moreover, ONLY Jews were targets of the "Final Solution" program. This needs to be changed also.

5 million
"5 million gentile deaths" is Simon Wiesenthal's crude fabrication, as pointed out by Peter Novick at http://h-net.msu.edu/cgi-bin/logbrowse.pl?trx=vx&list=h-holocaust&month=0005&week=c&msg=%2b6jdxOXCMf4wOdVQyiqttA&user=&pw= and by Jon Petrie at http://www.berkeleyinternet.com/holocaust/

Thus it does not deserve mention, except to debunk the myth.

Roma vs. Rroma
I reverted the change of Roma to Rroma because Rroma is a redirect to Roma --Silas Snider (talk) 19:40, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

In recent years there has been a movement towards use of the "double-R" spellings of "Rroma" for the people and "Rromanes" for the language, as in the Romani language, "r" and "rr" represent two different phonemes. see: Roma people article
 * Ah. Thank you. Gzuckier 18:43, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Non-Jewish Deaths per Camp?
Is there, anywhere, any information which essentially breaks down the non-Jewish death toll in the Holocaust into either camps or areas? Thank you to any assistance!

Concentration Camps vs Death Camps
It should be made clearer that concentration camps are a different thing from death camps. The purpose of the concentration camps was to make life very unpleasant for the inmates (so unpleasant in fact that by 1939 50% of the people in the concentration camps were dying), but the purpose of the concentration camps was not to exterminate the people there. The purpose of the deaths camp was extermination.

There were Jews in the concentration camps right from their founding in 1933, but there were a minority. The majority of the people in the concentration camps in 1933 were political opponents of the Nazis, mostly Social Democrats and Communists. The Jews sent to the concentration camps in the 1930s were there usually there because they were SPD or KPD members or because they had broke the Nuremberg Laws. I'm not trying to defend the Nazis in any way, but the general princple for most of the 1930s was that a Jew would have to do something first like breaking the Nuremberg Laws before being sent to a concentration camp. Just being Jewish was not sufficient enough. The first time that Jews were sent to the concentration camps just for being Jewish in large numbers was in 1938. By contrast, when the death camps opened in 1941, being Jewish was considered sufficient grounds to be sent there.


 * OK, but also clarify that most people use the words interchangably.Gzuckier 15:25, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It is a very important distinction when it comes to identifying camps. Concentration and Death camps were often paired, e.g. Auschwitz was the concentration camp, Berkinau was the death camp. Slrubenstein  |  Talk  16:44, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Targets to victims
Jez has changed the word "targets" in the intro from: "The Jews of Europe were the main targets of the Holocaust in what the Nazis called the "Final Solution of the Jewish Question" to "main victims." I prefer targets because the Final solution was aimed at Jews. They didn't just end up being its victims. They were its targets. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:19, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree. Also main "victims" almost minimizes the other victims who were equally victims once they were victimized.  The main "targets", however, were indisputably Jews. -- M P er el ( talk 19:32, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
 * That's a good point, Mperel. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:56, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
 * OK - hadn't thought about it like that. Targets it is, then. Jez 21:22, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Polish government in exile and the knowledge of the outside world
I think it should be noted in the article that POlish government-in-exile was publishing documents (e.g. so called black books) documents, organised meetings etc since the very beginning to populatise situation in Poland, icnluding fate of Jews. It also demanded to organise revenge terror bombing in Germany. I can't remember whether under Polish pressure United Nations had issued the decree that they know about crimes and guilty will be punished, but Polish gvt had issued such notes several times, while pressing other government to do the same.

So the world DID know about what was happening. It just didn't believed. When Sikorski arrived to USA. no single Jewish organisation reacted to pubilcations of Polish government, and instead in the meeting they were criticising Sikorski for publicatoin of anti-semitic newspaper (which was already banned by Polish gvt) and pre-War discrimination of Jews in Poland.

I think something about that should be mentioned in article. Szopen 06:57, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree... especially since the section "Who knew about the killings?" says: "The full extent of what was happening in German-controlled areas was not known until after the war." Of course, the full extent was not known, but significant amount of information about the German treatment of Jews inside occupied Poland, including that in Auschwitz was coming from the Home Army and Jewish organizations in Poland. Information was well known and publicized in the Great Britain and US by the Polish government in exile. Some examples:


 * The German Occupation of Poland, Note to Allied and Neutral Powers on May 3, 1941.
 * The German New Order in Poland, book published in London (1941?) and reprinted in the US under the title The Black Book of Poland, New York, 1942, covering period Sept. 1939-late June 1941.
 * "O&#347;wi&#281;cim (Auschwitz) Concentration Camp", article published in the Polish Fortnightly Review on Nov. 15, 1941.
 * The Mass Extermination of Jews in German Occupied Poland, note from the Polish government in exile to the United Nations on Dec. 10, 1942
 * Jan Karski, Polish underground emissary and eyewitness to extermination of Jews in occupied Poland, met in July 1943, with, among others, President Franklin Roosevelt and Felix Frankfurter to inform them about the ongoing Holocaust.
 * Also, a number of reports from Auschwitz escapees e.g. Jerzy Tabeau, Rudolf Vrba, Alfred Wetzler, Czes&#322;aw Mordowicz, and Arno&#353;t Rosin were publicized in the US in 1944.
 * IMHO, the section "Who knew about the killings?" needs revisions and ext. link to The Mass Extermination of Jews in German Occupied Poland full text . --Ttyre 19:08, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Bodies
Hi, I'm a Holocaust agnostic (or skeptic, if you prefer). I've been taught a tiny bit about the Jewish Holocaust of WWII in school of course, and I've heard about these revisionists and read some of their claims. So, I put my critical thinking cap on. I'd like very much to see a detailed section on the actual evidence of the crime itself, the bodies. I'd like to know how many corpses or parts of corpses have been exhumed, where, etc. I'd like to see the number of tons of cremated ash or lime found and where. I'd like to see the radar surveys.

I'd like to see the attempts made in this direction as well (i.e., who is searching for this evidence, where they're looking, the press coverage, etc. I'd like to see how they're determining the alleged Jewishness of any corpses as well.
 * Hey there. I can't offer the location of the bodies/ash/etc from the camps, but equally I can't find all of the Jews who disappeared around the same time. Really, where are they? The population of Ashkenazi jews dropped dramatically around the time of the holocaust, and I can't see any other causative factors.
 * I was approached by the "Revisionists" in my first year of college at UCC. I have to say, they can put forward a very convincing arguments, but that is not due to the veracity of their statements. They employ techniques of speech common to experienced debators, such as the artful use of what appears to be an "impassive" view of events, and straw man arguments. The guy trying to convince me of his view of events even started saying that it was a hateful race attack by the Jews upon Germans. Please explain to me how the Jewish population would have the resources to rewrite history? And even if this were true (and it is a common debate/political technique in any case - set an enemy up to bolster your argument), how is this version of history any less hateful than the existing one?
 * The Germans themselves alknowledge what happened in their country during WWII. I can't see why the rest of the world can't accept it and move on, keeping only the memory of the holocaust as a warning. And note here, that the German people are not blamed by anyone for the sins of their forefathers. The view that the Jews have set them up for hatred is a non-issue, an argument rooted in air.
 * Yes, it is true that the winners write history, and it is because of a persons right to their opinion that the Revisionists are allowed to preach at all. Note here that if our societies were based upon Nazi fascism, a radical group that questioned the norm such as the Revisionists would not be tolerated. However, it is also very easy to criticise history. For example; where is the evidence that Alexander the Great existed at all? Having done classical studies in secondary school, I could give you reams of data on this. However, to the layman or the uninformed (how many of the Revisionists have PhDs in Nazi German history and governmental structure?), Alexander could well seem to be a mythical figure.
 * The techniques they use to convince you about the events of the holocaust are similar to those used by cult indoctrinators, and indeed I wouldn't be surprised if the structure of their society was similar in essence to a cult of personality. Be very careful, and do some research on the net (or here) about cult techniques - they are frighteningly effective and the supposition that intelligent people are immune is woefully untrue.
 * Also, please remember to sign your work (you are a member, right? It's free!), the better to be recognised. Yours truly, Cathal

6 million?
I want someone to prove 6 million Jews died in the Holocaust right now, I want hard evidence to back it, a list of 6 million names with definative proof that they died due to Nazi involvement.


 * The task of Wikipedia is not to respond to individual queries. What you read in the article is the mainstream historical account, which you are free to disagree with, but you will have to find your own source material.
 * The Nazis themselves kept pretty good records of the people they killed in concentration camps, and most of these records are accessible to serious researchers. The Einsatzgruppen kept less accurate records, but that would lead to an under- rather than an overstatement of the death toll. If you dispute the veracity of the Nazis' own record, there is probably little that will convince you. JFW | T@lk  13:48, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Eugenics and stuff
Mostly just staggered photos (the page looked boring) and, more importantly, upsized many of the photos. Odd that the pics of Hitler and Eli Weisel seemed to dwarf the others. I thought the ones which illustrated the horrors of the Holocaust deserved more prominence.

I also added a bit more on eugenics; I thought it important. I really do think the article should be expanded in this regard. People continually ask, "How could such a thing happen?" The success of the eugenics movement in Germany and the extremes of popularized German thought in that regard go a long way toward answering that question. (The language of Ploetz and Hoche is both eye-opening and appalling.) IMO, there should be a separate section in Eugenics. I didn't read the entire article, but it also could probably use a good once over, copy edit-wise. deeceevoice 12:01, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Other comments: While a good start, this article actually could use a lot of fleshing out and reorganization. I question the order of elements. Why does the examination of the term (a relatively minor point) precede the really important stuff? A lot of the subheads are really choppy, with not enough information. They amount to little more than a sketchy outline.

How about recruiting some of the contributors to New anti-Semitism to expend some of that energy and knowledge here? This article really needs some help. The writing and content are uneven. What about the network of individuals and organizations working to save Jews? What about Kristallnacht? What about more info on the wholesale obliteration of Jewish communities and the destruction of synagogues and torah scrolls? What about the heroes among the public and the sellouts who turned in Jewish friends and neighbors? How have these towns and nations dealt with their collective culpability in this regard? What about a section on the Catholic Church? I'm wondering about a section on bringing Nazi war criminals to justice and related immigration laws internationally. What about Adolf Eichmann and the Nuremburg trials? What about more on Nazi torture and experimentation? What about related cases since? What about a segment on the treatment of the Holocaust in popular culture, in literature and films (theatrical, e.g., "The Boys from Brazil" and "Schindler's List"; and documentary, e.g., "There Once was a World" releases)? What about the concentration-camp-as-paradise "documentary" filmed by Gerron, a Jewish prisoner at Theresienstatd, who was summarily excuted once the Nazis had no further use for him? What about the research in the U.S. National Archives records that led to the discovery of the list and the success of the reparations movement?

I was surprised to see that this article was once nominated for featured article status. It has a very long way to go before it's ready for prime time. deeceevoice 12:38, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=genocide
 * Though related to the holocaust from an ethical viewpoint, the nazi eugenics program wasn't a part of the holocaust. The holocaust is commonly considered to be genocide, and eugenics isn't genocide, nor were the eugenics programs of the nazis.
 * I understand the need to push eugenics to dramatize the holocaust, but it's not a neutral POV.
 * --Scandum 14:53, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Blacks and The Holocaust
I added blacks to the list of groups targeted by Nazi Germany and receive an inquiry from another Wikipedian. I've reproduced my response below. More information about the treatment of blacks also should be included in the article.

"Just as Jews were throughout Europe, so, too, were blacks -- but in far smaller numbers. Most were 'mixed-race.' They were discriminated against and marginalized and segregated from mainstream German society. Most were forcibly sterilized, but it is estimated that at least 400 German blacks were sent to concentration camps. African-American woman jazz musician Valaida Snow was arrested in Denmark while living in and touring Europe and survived 18 months in Wester-Faengler, a Nazi concentration camp. She was released, along with some Allied troops, as part of a prisoner swap. And there were others. A relatively quick search on the Internet should yeild at least spotty information. Here's one web site w/a blurb. Just as non-Jewish victims of The Holocaust are continually overlooked, its black victims are almost never mentioned." deeceevoice 20:57, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * 400 blacks in total? Jayjg (talk) 21:00, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That's German citizens; and it's, of course, only an estimate. That doesn't account for others from other countries. And I don't recall when or where I read that statistic. Long time ago. Here's another link which may be of interest. deeceevoice 21:48, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Collaborators
Removed the sentence ''In Poland, before the WW II, Jews and non-Jews had very uneasy relations and anti-semitism was rampant. During the German occupation, many Poles actively collaborated in rounding up the Jews by Nazis and others closed their eyes when their Jewish countrymen were taken to the concentration camps and the eventual death. It was not a coincidence that Auschwitz was set up on Polish soil.'' for extreme POV. --Ttyre 19:22, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes that sentence has overwheling bias, but I hope it gets resurrected in some more neutral form. In both Poland and Ukraine the local feeling towards jews was very negative and many people were willing to help in the killing of Jews. --Cypherx 17:32, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Cypherx, do you realize that your comment contains the same stereotype and POV as the one I had removed? Please read again the Collaborators section to see how universal complicity in the Holocaust was in most of the WWII Europe. Also, the association you are making between alleged "very negative feelings toward Jews" and "willingness to help in the killings" is a huge logical stretch. --Ttyre 14:53, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm not saying the entire populations of Poland and Ukraine took part in the killing of Jews, or that the anti-semitism in those countries was entirely unique. However, the hatred of Jews was stronger and more common. Pogroms weren't that distant of a memory. I'm not a holocaust scholar and I haven't researched the issue extensively, but from what I've read it seems there was less resistance to, and greater willingness to participate in, the extermination of local Jews. Perhaps it seems this way because Poland and Ukraine had greater Jewish populations than other countries...I'm not sure. --Cypherx 00:15, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * How would you quantify "...stronger and more common..." as well as "...less resistance to, and greater willingness to participate in..." to support your point? Could you cite a source(s)? Otherwise it's your POV. --Ttyre 12:50, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The point about Auschwitz and the other death camps being in Poland being related to Polish Anti-Semitism is irreverent. I don't want to get into discussion about the subject of Polish anti-semitism, because I would have to type a long more then what I feel like doing right now, but I will say it's more complicated subject then many Polish Catholics or Jews are willing to admit. On one hand, it is clear that was a lot of anti-semitism in Poland before and after 1939, and that a certain segment of Polish Catholic population was not too sad about the Holocaust and another segment didn't really care about the fate of their Jewish neighbors. Before 1939, the National Democratic Party had a frankly anti-semitic platform. But on the other hand, it is also clear that a good number of Polish Catholics were opposed to anti-semitism before and after 1939, and that greatest number of the Righteous Among The Nations (that is gentiles who saved Jews) came from Poland. Never during the histoy of the Second Republic were the National Democrats were able to get their platform turned into law. My point is that the evidence reads my ways. Having said this much is probably too much, and I know I am going to get a ton of hate mail from both Poles and Jews.

Getting to my main point, the reason why the death camps were Poland had nothing to do with how anti-semitic the gentiles of Poland may or may have not been. The largest Jewish population in Europe outside of the Soviet Union was in Poland, and having the death camps there made for shorter train journay from the ghettos to the death camps. In 1941, 42, 43 and 44, World War Two was raging, and the Germans needed trains to supply their armies in the field. Without proper logistical support, no army can last long in the field. Every train taken to send Jews to the death camps was one less train that could supply the German army, and in fact the Holocaust at times caused the German army serious logistic problems by diverting trains that were needed to supply the military away from that work. From the German viewpoint, the best thing to do would be to ensure that the train trips from the ghettos to the death camps were as short as possible, because it allowed those trains to get back to supplying the German army. That is why the death camps were in Poland. The Germans could have cared less what the Polish gentiles thought about the Jews. I hope this adds to the discussion, and please accept my apologies if I came across as rude. A.S. Brown 28 June 2005 06:26 (UTC)

One-sided
The acticle starts from the premise that all the dogmas concerning the 'holocaust' are true, even though many of those are highly controversial. This clearly does not fall within the objectivity status. The same way, is it utterly incorrect to state that revisionists reverse the proper methodology for historical research OR that they generally have an ideological agenda behind their findings. Several revisionists are liberals or libertarians, and a very prominent revisionist even is jewish. What agenda could they possibly have? Also, few of the historians defending the official views ever prove their claims, while revisionists tend to come up with an abundance of proof, which is usually ignored.

Some resources on the revisionist view are :

websites :
 * Intstitute for Historical Review
 * VHO.org
 * Holocaust Historiography project

books :
 * Holocaust Affirmers (Alexander Baron)
 * The Hoax Of The 20th Century (Arthur Butz)
 * The Rumor of Auschwitz (Robert Faurisson)
 * The Giant With Feet Of Clay : Raul Hilber and his standard work on the "holocaust" (Jürgen Graf)
 * Holocaust or Hoax? (Jürgen Graf)
 * The First Holocaust: Jewish Fund Raising Campaigns with Holocaust Claims During and After World War One (Don Heddesheimer)
 * The Myth of the Six Million (David Hoggan)
 * Auschwitz: The End of a Legend (Carlo Mattogno)
 * Belzec in Propaganda, Testimonies, Archeological Research, and History (Carlo Mattogno
 * Treblinka: Extermination Camp or Transit Camp? (Carlo Mattogno & Jürgen Graf)
 * Concentration Camp Majdanek: A Historical and Technical Study (Carlo Mattogno & Jürgen Graf)
 * Concentration Camp Stutthof and its Function in National Socialist Jewish Policy (Carlo Mattogno & Jürgen Graf)
 * The Drama of the European Jews (Paul Rassinier)
 * The Confessions of Kurt Gerstein (Henri Roques)
 * Dissecting the Holocaust (Germar Rudolf)
 * The Rudolf Report: Expert Report on Chemical and Technical Aspects of the ‘Gas Chambers’ of Auschwitz (Germar Rudolf)
 * The Holocaust Story and the Lies of Ulysses (Paul Rassinier)
 * The origins of the Second World War (AJP Taylor)--[[


 * (a) Stop spamming those links on holocaust-related articles; anyone who wants them can just go to vho-land anyway. (b) Consensus will knock out that notice; you're hardly the first one to put it in. It will be removed every time; don't waste your energy. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 18:54, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * How about neutrallity? --IlluSionS667 19:11, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Rehashed POV baloney. None of those are neutral sources. NPOV does not require that false views be given equal time with true views. Now go away. --FCYTravis 18:56, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Then what makes a source neutral? Is a source only neutral when it is n compiance with the official story? Each of the books provided is neutral, in the way that they use objective historical methods to come to their conclusions, and in the way that they do not promote any opinion whatsoever. This is NOT the case for this article. --IlluSionS667 19:11, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * There is already a section noting that some people do not believe the Holocaust happened, and linking to the article on that belief - Holocaust denial. That is all the space such a belief merits on this page, which is about a widely accepted historical fact. --FCYTravis 19:13, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Being widely accepted, does not make it a fact. It used to be widely accepted that the earth was flat. It used to be widely accepted that black people were an inferior, more primitive kind of man. It used to be widely accepted that there was something called an "ether". All of these things have been disproven be science. Why not allow these so-called facts about the so-called 'holocaust' to be objectively researched and discussed? Why still claim that something is fact, when there is an abundance of evidence that disproves those so-called facts? --IlluSionS667 19:20, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Because the so-called evidence is bullshit, it's repeatedly been demonstrated to be bullshit, and it's a waste of time and finger movements for sane, intelligent, well-intentioned people to debate with dedicated deniers. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 19:26, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * What makes it BS? The evidence is solid and has NEVER been disproven whatsoever. Your claim that is it "a waste of time" to discuss with revisionists, merely shows how little evidence you guys really have. Revisionists don't shun debate, because they are backed up by evidence, which is something those defending the official story are not. --IlluSionS667 19:29, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I've talked with an American soldier who liberated a Nazi concentration camp. That was evidence enough for me. You can deny everything you want, but you can't deny the memories of those who were there. Pity that as their generation passes into history, it will become easier for your ilk to pretend the greatest mass murder of all time never happened. --FCYTravis 19:32, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * What did the American soldier see, that can not be explained by revisionist history? I'm not the denier here. You're the one denying all the available evidence, by clinging on to old war-propaganda and the testimonies of the few Elie 'Weasel's and the Primo Levi's out there, who use their lies either to make profit, for revenge or to promore an agenda, while the majority of testomonies is perfectly in line with revisionist history. That's true denial ! ! --IlluSionS667 19:35, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Anyway, I'm not going to bother about this anymore. I don't care for being part of a community as hypocritical as this one, that claims to be objective by all means, but that fails to show any objectivity whatsoever on certain issues. I would have loved to input my knowledge on many other subjects to the advancement of WIKIPEDIA and the general knowledge of its visitors, but with this climate I rather go elswhere. You guys just keep playing in your little sandbox.


 * One shudders to think of our narrow escape. 100 white supremacist/antisemitic edits in 8 hours..... Gzuckier 22:54, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Are you calling my edits white supremacist/antisemitic? That's funny.

All I have to add, are the following quotes from famous people who do know what they're talking about, unlike you guys :


 * "There are two histories : official history, lying, and then secret history, where you find the real causes of events" (Honoré de Balzac, 19th century French novelist)


 * "All things are subject to interpretation whichever interpretation prevails at a given time is a function of power and not truth." (Friedrich Nietzsche, 19th century German philosopher, philologist and psychologist)


 * "All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." (Arthur Schopenhauer, 19th century German philosopher)


 * "Only the winners decide what were war crimes." (Gary Wills, Pulitzer Prize winner and current Adjunct Professor of History at Northwestern)


 * "Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are not even capable of forming such opinions." (Albert Einstein, 20th century German theoretical physicist and Nobel Prize winner)


 * "The individual is handicapped by coming face to face with a conspiracy so monstrous he cannot believe it exists." (J. Edgar Hoover, Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation from 1924, until his death in 1972)


 * "These Holocaust deniers are very slick people. They justify everything they say with facts and figures." (Steven Some, Chairman of the New Jersey Commission on Holocaust Education)


 * "In general it should not be forgotten that the highest aim of human existence is not the preservation of a state, let alone a government, but the preservation of the species. The state is a means to an end. Its end lies in the preservation and advancement of a community of physically and spiritually similar beings. This preservation comprises first of all existence as a race, and thereby permits free development of all the forces dormant in this race.  For in the long run systems of government are not maintained by the pressure of force, but by faith in their soundness and in the truthfulness with which they represent and advance the interests of a people."  (Adolf Hitler, leader and imperial chancellor of Germany from 1933 to 1945.)

....... IlluSionS667 out .......

Good riddance. john k 22:41, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)