Email from Andrew Mathis (The Holocaust History Project)

[friedrich braun]

Notice the arrogance and impudence so characteristic of the Special People (TM)

Dr Mathis, you make some interesting points and I am sending this email
through our list for anyone to comment. I shall make same presently
when I
have time -

Fredrick Töben

========================================


----- Original Message -----
From: "Andrew Mathis" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2004 2:48 PM
Subject: The End of Adelaide?


Dr. Töben:

I'm writing not to gloat -- because I'd have preferred that your
organization have fallen under the weight of the truth rather than
attacks
on free speech -- but rather to point out that you've never managed to
fool
anyone as to just what you are.

Just to address your points:

(1) Michael Santomauro told me five years ago that he was Jewish. He
even
claimed his grandfather was in a KZ. He was lying, of course, and not
at
that time identifying himself by name. The question that does arise,
however, is why it is in some way libelous to call someone Jewish who
is
not.

(2) Santomauro confiscated several pamphlets published by the Holocaust
History Project at a February 2003 address by David Irving in New York.
So
much for free speech and equal time. He then refused to debate me
publicly
without charging an entrance fee for the audience. Conclusion?
"Revisionism"
is a money-making scheme, and when it fails, people go broke.

(3) I find it interesting that you take issue with being called a Nazi
or an
anti-Semite, but then you name Willis Carto and Ernst Zündel among your
important allies. These men are avowed anti-Semites, and everyone knows
this. Zündel is a neo-Nazi -- he'd be the first to tell you this. In
fact,
the sheer number of Jew-haters and Nazi apologists in your "movement"
is why
it is doomed to fail, even if there were not laws against it.

(4) Ariel Sharon, as bad a person as I believe him to be, does not have
the
blood on his hands that Hitler did. The comparison is false. As for
Nigel
Parry, whom I greatly admire, "shitting" on Hitler, I say good for him.
He,
Ali Abuminah, and Hussein Ibish, all men of honor, united in opposing
the
vile anti-Semitism of "Israel Shamir." Finally, when you say that
hatred of
Hitler is hatred of Germans, you are essentially stating that all
Germans
were/are Nazis. Do you so hate yourself and other Germans to make such
a
comparison?

(5) Faurisson is an egotist and an obnoxious human being, poking at
people
and asking for "just one proof." Jean-Claude Pressac gave him a whole
book,
and he's still yammering.

(6) If Germar Rudolf's sham marriage fails to convince the INS, then
he's
not going to be publishing anything, now, is he?

(7) The SS and Gestapo repressed Jews with an iron heel. Even if one
were to
allow the ridiculous assumption that no, or very few, Jews were killed
by
the Nazis, to claim that the Nazis were good people is to undermine
what
Mark Weber has been saying forever: That "revisionists" don't deny a
great
tragedy befell the Jews of Europe during WWII. Of course, Weber is a
neo-Nazi, so how much that's actually worth is questionable. And that's
just
another example of the Jew-haters being your albatross.

(8) This point would seem to say that whatever tragedy befell Europe's
Jews
(which you deny, but I digress) they deserved.

(9) Hitler was no genius. He was a brilliant orator, a smart
politician, and
a very competent foot soldier, but he was an ignoramus of a
generalissimo,
and for that, Europe paid the price of 50 years of Communist domination
and
Germany was utterly demolished.

(10) Your final point makes the same point that National Socialist
White
People's Party leader Harold Covington made nearly ten years ago: The
point
of "revisionism" is to rehabilitate National Socialism. Hard to do when
you've got millions of dead bodies to "explain away."

Well, you had a good go at it, but truth won in the end. Sucks, eh?

Andrew E. Mathis, Ph.D.
The Holocaust History Project
http://www.holocaust-history.org/
The above views are my own are do not represent the official views of
the
Holocaust History Project or any of its individual members, except
myself.

[Hannover]

Ad hominem, false claims, but no facts. Typical indicators of desperation.

Simply search 'aemathisphd' above and see his version of truth demolished. Yep he's posted here aplenty and the results were a runaway rout in favor of Revisionists. Go ahead, have a look.

The so called 'holocaust' History Project folks talk, but can't back-up what they claim, very simple. Heaven knows we have debunked each and every one of their unsustainable assertions.

- Hannover

[Hannover]

Also be sure to see *:
http://forum.codoh.com/codoh/408.html
from a previous CODOH BBS.

To see more from that BBS go to:
http://forum.codoh.com/codoh/

topics include:
'gassed on arrival' at Auschwitz - evidence?

the self titled 'Holocaust History Project' & fear of debate

Physical Evidence

Lack of physical evidence and its ramifications

*Why does [it] strike me as being relevant?

The Unreliability of Documents In Jean-Claude Pressac's Auschwitz: Technique and Operation of the Gas Chambers

Gassings

Eichmann Interrogated

Holocaust Believers as "Deniers"

Claimed cremation patent / 3.5 kg of coke

an alleged document / why so many 'heizers'?

More on the Schlegelberger document

the Reinhard camps

- H.

[Juan]

Huh, it's unnerving to read so much hate and venom in one post.

Poor soul, this Andrew Mathis, he deserves our pity.

[JackBQuick]

Not very civilized this, Dr. Mathis.

http://holocaust-history.info/response5.html

-JBQ

[kk]

Not very civilized this, Dr. Mathis.

Using the 'four letter words' in e- correspondence is very becoming to a
scholar, indeed. It shows not a hind of arrogance, but rather an elevated
sence of manliness. Verbaly abusing someone who's thousands of miles away
shows that WE are not afraid of anyone.

What a hero!

[kk]

(9) Hitler was no genius. He was a brilliant orator, a smart
politician, and
a very competent foot soldier, but he was an ignoramus of a
generalissimo,
and for that, Europe paid the price of 50 years of Communist domination
and
Germany was utterly demolished.

Well , that's the end of David Irving ( and of some prominent non- revisionist historians) too.

[The_Skunk]

I have discussed the Holocaust with Mathis on another forum.

My basic question was - " If Auschwitz went from 4,000,000 to 1,000,000 does the overall number go from 6 mil to 3 mil "

His answer was - " No the 6,000,000 is firm "

[kk]

" No the 6,000,000 is firm "

If you go back on a scam you simply lose .
No chance.

[Temporary on hold]

#2 Mathis suggests revisionists are cowaring away from debate! HA!

#3 Heavy Nazi-baiting as substitute and diversion from real debate over facts. Common tactic, but obvious.

#5 Flagrant misrepresentation of Pressac. That "yammering" contains utter destructions of Pressac's findings, motivations, and methods. Even Pressac himself contradicts commonly believed holocaust legends.

#6 Tell a believer that their marriage is a "sham marriage" and therefore of the type that isn't protected by previous laws and see what they say. Typical that an unprecedented alteration of previous spousal immigration rules is dealt with in such a crude way. Zionists are now dictating which US protections apply and which don't.

#7 Number 7 is classic "holocaust denial" baiting. It, again, avoids facts by trying to blackwash all revisionists as people who say no Jews were killed by the Nazis.


#8 Mathis is trying to say the revisionist facts he avoids so completely are just excuses and that the real reason revisionists question holocaust legends is because they wish to create a fourth Reich...


If Mathis had any real case he would come onto this board and show it. I've seen too many believers duck out of threads when the facts and links appear to take any of this seriously. Unfortunately it is all that is needed to put you in jail in some places...

[Hannover]

Good points, Dub.

If Mathis had any real case he would come onto this board and show it.

Well, he tried, but simply got spanked as my links above clearly demonstrate. In utter frustration he then resorted to massive spamming and the usual namecalling.
see:
http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=1009

Remember, he's from the so called 'holocaust' History Project.

- Hannover

[Trojan]

If Mathis had any real case he would come onto this board and show it. I've seen too many believers duck out of threads when the facts and links appear to take any of this seriously. Unfortunately it is all that is needed to put you in jail in some places

Yeah right, maybe it has something to do with the delete key that our modertors wield wothout regret on posts they cannot defeat.

[The_Skunk]

#6 Tell a believer that their marriage is a "sham marriage" and therefore of the type that isn't protected by previous laws .

This is an age old Jewish trick to intimidate.

The most amazzing thing is in 2004 they can lock up a Zundel. That has the jewish element riding high and flush with their importance.

[Moderator]

Sorry Trojan, but you are quite incorrect; it has nothing to do with the delete key. Nothing is deleted which is on topic. I notice that you have given no examples either. Mathis's views are all here, uncensored. His posts and the responses to them speak for themselves.

Related, see:
http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=1202
Mod1

[friedrich braun]

Answer from Dr. Toeben et al.


Dear Dr Mathis

1. Only now do I have the time to send you my response to your email because I have been revelling in the wonderful Adelaide production of Richard Wagner's Der Ring Des Nibelungen.

2. This home-grown production answers your question: It is not the end of Adelaide!

3. My sending your email through the list seems to have upset you because I did not ask for permission beforehand. I find this attitude rather unprofessional because seasoned email users know very well that any email not marked 'confidential' is invariably regarded as being in the public domain. In fact, Dr Mathis, I regard any of my emails that I write in such light, and even if I append a qualification to an email, I know that in time anything I have written will somehow, somewhere appear. That is what the free speech principle teaches us - to think before we speak and to publish our thoughts in the knowledge that someone, somewhere will read our thoughts.

4. My sending your email through the list generated many responses, and I thank you for sending to me copies of those responses that just went your way. I thank all those respondents , and initially I wanted to make a list of what came in, but I do have other priorities and must decline. But I shall end this email with a few responses that sum it all up.

5. My only comment to you in response is about your comment on Prof Faurisson and Pressac. I met Pressac and he confirmed that there was no proof of the gassings, but that an Italian team was reconstructing the homicidal gas chamber on a DVD and in 1999 had reached the outer door of the alleged gas chamber at Krema II. If you know anything about this project, then I would be happy to hear about it from you. Pressac, by the way, had a lot of material - the whole Topf and Sons archive, but therein he did not find any evidence for the existence of the gas chambers - he remarked to me that this firm could have constructed one, etc. Your comment is rather misleading on this point, and that is not befitting an academic because it borders on lying by omission.


Sincerely

Fredrick Töben

====

Hi Fredrick,
This guy is extremely childish, and his 'truth' is only emotional bias -
but he is too wrapped up in it and too immature to recognize it for what
it is. He offers no proof, only repetitions of propaganda, to support
his arguments. Further, his delving into politics ignores that his side
has tens of millions of dead bodies to explain if it wants to be
rehabilitated.
- Kai [email protected]

===============

From: "John Bryant" <[email protected]>
To: "Andrew Mathis" <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, December 10, 2004 1:36 AM
Subject: Re: The End of Adelaide?

OOOOOH! Temper, temper! You really have taken a hit, haven't you? You were so smooth, so confident that you could take a few free bites out of some revisionists' hides, but now that it has turned out that you have had a few taken out of your own, you have decided to show your true colors -- ugly, ignorant, and DEFEATED! Go lick your wounds, Andrew. You can't win on truth, and you certainly can't win on profanity. As JBR Yant says, Insult is the last refuge of the out-argued.

PS: Like I said, if you don't want to be written to, DON'T WRITE!

*********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********

On 12/9/04 at 6:29 AM Andrew Mathis wrote:

>Listen, dick: I didn't give Töben permission to publish my letter. He did
>it w/out asking, which makes him almost as big an asshole as you.
>
>a.m.
=========
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Wakefield Sault" <[email protected]>
To: "Adelaide Institute" <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, December 09, 2004 11:19 AM
Subject: Re: The End of Adelaide?

Hi Fredrick

Dr. Mathis certainly does make some interesting points. For instance, I
never knew before that some mass murderers were more socially acceptable
than other mass murderers dependent upon the precise amount of blood on
their hands.

I can't say that I read any of the quoted works extensively but, however, in
what revisionism I have read I have never detected hate quite so vehement as
that of the self-proclaimed "Anti-haters", led on by the robotic
pseudo-Christian maniacs of the USA; the target of their disguised hatred
being anything which in any way differs from themselves or which might get
in the way of the 'Second Coming', especially if those obstacles are
Palestinian children.

I would like Dr. Mathis to explain in what way the Hitlerists were worse
than, say, the British monarchy or the American presidency were and are,
taking the broad sweep of history. As I recall, eugenics was practiced by
several American states, including California, until quite recently. In fact
I have yet to hear any valid argument against eugenics per se, it being
usually demonized by its critics through association with the German nazis
rather than by any intrinsic moral or ethical flaw in the practice itself.
In connection with this Dr. Mathis also repeats the tired old canard about
German nazis wishing to exterminate defective children, which even if true
is an entirely separate issue from that of eugenics.

As for Hitler being no genius, I agree so far as the direction of the war as
concerned although it is arguable that no amount of genius could have
stopped Germany from being overwhelmed by massive force of arms. Moreover,
if Dr. Mathis knew the slightest thing about genius he would be aware that
it is never all-encompassing. A lack of it in one area does not imply a
complete absence of it all round.

Dr. Mathis thinks that National Socialism cannot ever be rehabilitated
because of the "millions of dead bodies" to be explained away. Has Dr.
Mathis never read the Jewish religious scribblings, scribblings that Jews
insist are the historical facts (meaning that even if the stories are just
so much tosh, the Jews identify with and stick by them) and that are used to
justify the theft of Palestine and the continuing persecution of the
Palestinian people? Evidently not, or he would be compelled to condemn
Judaism in precisely the same way. The number genocided by dead 'Israelites'
scales up to equivalence at least with anything perpetrated by dead German
nazis, even accepting the magic number of the zionist cabala. For that
matter are we to assume that 'Americanism', guilty as it is of the genocide
of upwards of tens of millions each of Native Americans and Africans, is
even further beyond reach of rehabilitation? The only alternative to the
religious angle is that Judaism is a form of racism no different from that
which arose in Germany in the 1930s except in its persistence. What exactly
is it that makes a certain type of behaviour acceptable from anyone else but
not from Germans? How far back in history can we go looking for valid
obstacles to rehabilitation? According to the Jews, it was alleged
supernatural events of thousands of years ago that justify their own
institution of an apartheid state on stolen land now.

Now, for stating the above facts, am I to be accused of "hatred", of being
an "anti-semite", a "neo-nazi" and the suchlike? Will I collect a few ad
hominems for actually having a genuinely balanced attitude? What exactly is
wrong with not wishing one's life to be governed from the soon-to-be capital
of one of the world's leading racist states?

Perhaps Dr. Mathis is one of those academics who thinks that the validity of
an opinion is somehow dependent upon the opiner having 'correct' political
beliefs, 'correct', that is, according to Dr. Mathis. Well the truth is
never a matter of good taste; as Chiang Tzu tells us, the Tao can be found
in excrement. So who cares what Ernst Zundel's political beliefs are? Those
who have him incarcerated without charge are far worse.

All the best
Peter

================

----- Original Message -----
From: <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2004 5:18 PM
Subject: Re: The End of Adelaide?

(1) Michael Santomauro told me five years ago that he was Jewish. He even

claimed his grandfather was in a KZ. He was lying, of course, and not at

that time identifying himself by name. The question that does arise,

however, is why it is in some way libelous to call someone Jewish who is

not.

My response: The phone conversation with Dr. Mathis lasted about six hours in
June of 2000. Less than a week from my attending the May 2000 IHR conference.
I posted that I had attended the IHR conference on my new (started in May
2000) website, which is the reason for his call. He assumed I was Jewish when I
told him my father (not my grandfather) was in a concentration camp. My father
was in a German camp as a POW for two years after Italy switched sides in
1943. At the time I did not know the nuance differences between a POW camp and a
concentration camp. In our conversation he spoke to me as a fellow traveller
saying the following statements:

"Jews should not air their dirty laundry"

"Michael Hoffman's research is more accurate on the Talmud than anyone else
on the Internet"

"Israel Shahak was wrong to divulge the sayings of the Talmud, he's a
self-hating Jew"

Yet, he comes from an Italian-Catholic household. He converted to Judaism
when he was in college. His father was / is agnostic with a Russian-Jewish
background.


(2) Santomauro confiscated several pamphlets published by the Holocaust

History Project at a February 2003 address by David Irving in New York. So

much for free speech and equal time. He then refused to debate me publicly

without charging an entrance fee for the audience. Conclusion? "Revisionism"

is a money-making scheme, and when it fails, people go broke.

My response: There were boxes of pamphlets next to the books that David
Irving was selling. People were helping themselves to pamphlets. It was not until
intermission that Dr. John who sponsored the event, read this truly hateful
pamphlet written by Dr. Mathis that it was removed by Dr. John. David Irving nor
I were even aware of the content of these pamphlets, until the event was over.

I will debate him in any public forum. I suggested a small $10 cover charge
to pay for the rental and advertising costs. If there was a profit he would get
half of it.


Peace.
Michael Santomauro
Editorial Director
253 West 72nd street #1711
New York, NY 10023
http://www.RePortersNoteBook.com
212-787-7891


======================
----- Original Message -----
From: CHP
To: [email protected]
Cc: Toben, Fredrick
Sent: Thursday, December 09, 2004 1:21 AM
Subject: Re: The End of Adelaide?

Sir!

You wrote: "Germar Rudolf's sham marriage"

May I ask what you can state to support that accusation?

Sincerely

Germar Rudolf

====================
----- Original Message -----
From: "Biophilos" <[email protected]>
To: "Adelaide Institute" <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2004 11:31 PM
Subject: Re: The End of Adelaide?

At 12:33 AM 12/8/2004, you wrote:
>(3) I find it interesting that you take issue with being called a Nazi or
>an anti-Semite, but then you name Willis Carto and Ernst Zündel among your
>important allies. These men are avowed anti-Semites, and everyone knows
>this. Zündel is a neo-Nazi -- he'd be the first to tell you this. In fact,
>the sheer number of Jew-haters and Nazi apologists in your "movement" is
>why it is doomed to fail, even if there were not laws against it.

why waste time with types such as these........there only purpose is to
denigrate and twist. They are not interested in sincere or honest research
of the facts , especially when they are opening up secrets that they would
like to keep away from the judgement of others.....

arguing with Zionists no matter how rational or susse they may appear is a
waste of time.......we know their heart are full of hypocrisy, and cunning,
and at any time convenient to them , they will use your honesty, and
openness against you, even as has been the case with many revisionists
attacking by their various means.....

our time, is better spent in constructing and networking. In finding ways
to free our societies from perhaps the most ruthless and cunning menace
ever to challenge the Freedoms of Humanity.......Zionism.......

B:/

============
----- Original Message -----
From: BTB
To: [email protected]
Cc: Fredrick Toben
Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2004 7:09 PM
Subject: Read your letter to Fred Toben

Hello Andrew,

I went to school with Fredrick Toben, I was also a 'German boy' but unlike the 'Toben Twins' (he has an Identical twin named ******) I had no German Accent because I'd been here longer, and it was not a good thing to have in those days.

Toben was a very good student but in-your-face German and completely fearless, he'd stand up to the teachers and argue on a priciple. Quite a character actually. I knew him, but we weren't mates. In 1999 I found out he'd been arrested in Germany and Jailed, so I made a point of finding out why, as he certainly never gave the impression of being criminally inclined. You will already have anticipated, this led me to his (and many other) web-sites all telling the same story.

The revisionist World lay before me.

I was born in a Town about 10 kilometres from the Auschwitz KZ Lager. My mother spent time and bought food there in December 1944. She swapped a loaf of bread with an inmate for a pair of leather shoes there. She distinctly recalls the SS Guards there as being very old men and eager to go home. Some of the old Guards had arthritis. All the Guards were decent, nice old gentlemen, especially happy to see the older Nuns who were part of my Mother's group of about 25 Women fleeing to the West in front of the Red Army.

I asked her about the Gas Chambers in Auschwitz and she rolls her eyes and shakes her head. They'd arrest her in Germany and cancel her pension.

God help us.

The old lady (85 in Febuary) is still well and clear of memory, lives in Sydney. I know the Jews suffered during WW2, thousands shot, starved God only knows. But so did the Ukrainians AT JEWISH HANDS in the early 1930's.

No Hollywood movies on that one Andrew.

It was the incredible tale of John Demanjuk and the Israeli show trial which convinced me there were certainly some 'issues' with the Holocaust. I note your Holocaust History Site has stuff on Treblinka. Treblinka was much on the Israeli courts mind in their attempts to prove Demanjuk was there and was 'Ivan the Terrible'.

Anyone following the tale of John Demanjuk cannot help but see some real problems with Treblinka: For a start, where are the remains of the 890,000 persons alledgedly shot, then buried, then dug up, then cremated?

You may not be aware of this but in 1999 a team of Australian Engineering graduates took Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) to the Treblika 'site' to find traces of, not so much human remains, rather evidence of soid disturbance.

A grave large enough to hold 890,000 persons would be a HUGE and soil disturbance
would be easy to find with this technology, itself undreamed of in 1943/44. Especially since the allegation is that the Nazi's dug it up twice.

I'm not one of those who gets steamed up on this subject, but fair go! I visited the Cullodden Moor gravesite in Scotland years ago. I think it was about 1745 when 900 of Scotlands finest were done to death by the English who buried them there, on the spot.

The graves are mounds about a cricket pitch long,there are about 10 or so of these and the legend is not so much as a daisy grows on them. I looked for flowers and it was true. (Good greenkeeper?)

My point is here are 300 year old graves, pick and shovel jobs and they are still impossible to mistake for anything else.

Only 900 bodies.

890,000 Bodies would leave a grave so large it would be visible from the bloody moon! And even with GPR you can't find it?

Can you enlighten me? I'm serious, I want the truth and I suspect no-body is telling it. Toben and Co HATE Jews, they have their reasons and they too may very well distort and exagerate. Jews on the other hand, need us to believe so much they instigated laws in many countries making it a CRIME not to believe.

Thought crimes. They'd arrest my 85 year old mum.

I'm not going to believe that 890,000 persons were buried at Treblinka. Not even once let alone twice, until I see evidence of the graves having been dug there. You're probably part of the World wide pro-holocaust mob.

I know, I know, you've got to get a quid somehow.

See my point? No-body is unbiased.

Please do not take offence, none is intended. You're a scholar and that I admire, I was hopeless at school.

Regards

Bernie Busch


==============



----- Original Message -----
From: "Andrew Mathis" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2004 2:48 PM
Subject: The End of Adelaide?


Dr. Töben:

I'm writing not to gloat -- because I'd have preferred that your organization have fallen under the weight of the truth rather than attacks on free speech -- but rather to point out that you've never managed to fool anyone as to just what you are.

Just to address your points:

(1) Michael Santomauro told me five years ago that he was Jewish. He even claimed his grandfather was in a KZ. He was lying, of course, and not at that time identifying himself by name. The question that does arise, however, is why it is in some way libelous to call someone Jewish who is not.

(2) Santomauro confiscated several pamphlets published by the Holocaust History Project at a February 2003 address by David Irving in New York. So much for free speech and equal time. He then refused to debate me publicly without charging an entrance fee for the audience. Conclusion? "Revisionism" is a money-making scheme, and when it fails, people go broke.

(3) I find it interesting that you take issue with being called a Nazi or an anti-Semite, but then you name Willis Carto and Ernst Zündel among your important allies. These men are avowed anti-Semites, and everyone knows this. Zündel is a neo-Nazi -- he'd be the first to tell you this. In fact, the sheer number of Jew-haters and Nazi apologists in your "movement" is why it is doomed to fail, even if there were not laws against it.

(4) Ariel Sharon, as bad a person as I believe him to be, does not have the blood on his hands that Hitler did. The comparison is false. As for Nigel Parry, whom I greatly admire, "shitting" on Hitler, I say good for him. He, Ali Abuminah, and Hussein Ibish, all men of honor, united in opposing the vile anti-Semitism of "Israel Shamir." Finally, when you say that hatred of Hitler is hatred of Germans, you are essentially stating that all Germans were/are Nazis. Do you so hate yourself and other Germans to make such a comparison?

(5) Faurisson is an egotist and an obnoxious human being, poking at people and asking for "just one proof." Jean-Claude Pressac gave him a whole book, and he's still yammering.

(6) If Germar Rudolf's sham marriage fails to convince the INS, then he's not going to be publishing anything, now, is he?

(7) The SS and Gestapo repressed Jews with an iron heel. Even if one were to allow the ridiculous assumption that no, or very few, Jews were killed by the Nazis, to claim that the Nazis were good people is to undermine what Mark Weber has been saying forever: That "revisionists" don't deny a great tragedy befell the Jews of Europe during WWII. Of course, Weber is a neo-Nazi, so how much that's actually worth is questionable. And that's just another example of the Jew-haters being your albatross.

(8) This point would seem to say that whatever tragedy befell Europe's Jews (which you deny, but I digress) they deserved.

(9) Hitler was no genius. He was a brilliant orator, a smart politician, and a very competent foot soldier, but he was an ignoramus of a generalissimo, and for that, Europe paid the price of 50 years of Communist domination and Germany was utterly demolished.

(10) Your final point makes the same point that National Socialist White People's Party leader Harold Covington made nearly ten years ago: The point of "revisionism" is to rehabilitate National Socialism. Hard to do when you've got millions of dead bodies to "explain away."

Well, you had a good go at it, but truth won in the end. Sucks, eh?

Andrew E. Mathis, Ph.D.
The Holocaust History Project
http://www.holocaust-history.org/
The above views are my own are do not represent the official views of the Holocaust History Project or any of its individual members, except myself.