I actually had thought the debate with holocaust denier David Irving and racist Nick Griffin at the Oxford Union had been canceled, but via Deborah Lipstadt's blog it turns out they made the mistake of giving the man an outlet for his nonsense. An account is offered by attendee Jonny Wright that I think supports our contention that denialists should not be debated.
Wright takes the side that free speech is always the best way to go, but the mistake here is thinking that free speech means inviting a holocaust denier to use your loudspeaker to spout nonsense. It never should have even been considered. All this does is give Irving a patina of legitimacy, and an opportunity to once again deny the truth, which he clearly does throughout the debate. The deniers will use this as an example of their fake historian being taken seriously, and legitimize the idea that there is an actual debate to be had over whether or not the holocaust happened. The other supporters of the invitation had similarly inane things to say, such as this nonsense
But participant Ms Atkins said controversial views should not be silenced but exposed.
"When you say that the majority view is always right I think that is a deeply dangerous and disturbing thing to say.
"I am not for a moment saying that I agree with David Irving or Nick Griffin but I am saying that once you start having truth by democracy you risk silencing some of the most important prophets we have ever had."
This is making the false assumption that truth by democracy is what makes people like Irving and Griffin wrong. The issue isn't what the majority approves of but having standards for honest debate. You simply can't have that with people who lie and misrepresent science or history to serve a ideological agenda.
The tougher issue, however, is what to do when the denier got invited. The anti-fascist demonstration clearly got out of hand trying to prevent entry of anyone into the debate. Wright categorizes this as anti-free speech and hypocritical (just as hypocritical as "free speech" advocate Irving's lawsuit against Deborah Lipstadt to silence her), and I agree with that much. But the goal of putting pressure on the Oxford Union not to have the debate in the first place was certainly correct, and protesting outside of the debate and calling the attendees useful idiots of Irving would have been just fine as well. It's not suppression of free speech to refuse denialists access to your platform though, and that is just what should have been done. After all, the issue is not the content of what Irving discussed that night, but rather the legitimacy that a venerated debate society confers on the denier by virtue of their invitation.
- Log in to post comments
"The legitimacy that a venerated debate society confers on the denier by virtue of their invitation."
David Icke was meant to have been there earlier this month explaining his theory that humanity is being run by a cabal of disguised giant lizards, which shows the level the Oxford Union is at at the moment.
They shouldn't have been invited. The right to free speech doesn't include the necessity to provide privelidged platforms to viurulent racists. Having said that, once they had been invited I guess they have to be allowed to speak. This is both on the grounds of right to free speech and also for more pragmatic reason; disrupting their performances allows them to score political points. Those protesting outside had every right to do so; those who stormed the event should be ashamed of themselves.
On a slightly tangential point, many people have been disgusted by the invite to Griffin and Irving. There was less fuss made when the Oxford Union invited equally (if not more so) loathsome members of Hizb ut Tahir. Likewise, many mainstream newspapers in this country carry articles by the noxious Muslim Brotherhood, yet not Griffin or Irving. This double standard is worrying.
Another report is by Micah Richards at:
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/micah_smith/2007/11/a_crushing_disa…
Why do people get so worked up about this? So he doesn't think a specific event happened in the way the history books record, what's the big deal?
1. Are you saying that truth isn't important?
2. This isn't about disagreement alone. These people use all sorts of unethical, dishonest tactics. The same kind of propaganda techniques that anti-science crowds are fond of, and are steadily dumbing down the world.
1. How do you define truth in a universe where the past is inaccessible to us in the present? A religious person claims to know the truth of their dogma based on a human recording of the past, as all human history is.
2. Unfortunately, history is not a science in our universe.
The Oxford Union is making the same error that Deborah Lipstadt criticized naive campus newspaper editors for doing: thinking that "both sides" are equally legitimate in terms of "debate" and so deserve "equal space" in newspaper columns. That's how these foolish editors were duped into running ads by Holocaust revision-liars and even allowing them to run opinion pieces. Now the Oxford Union is as stupid and naive as some student journalists circa the 80s.
Nothing is beyond the pale anymore. There is apparently no cause that cannot be given a respectful hearing, no conspiracy that cannot be spewed (I know academics who believe in 9/11 - and even Pearl Harbor - conspiracy theories) shamelessly, no lie that cannot be given a prestigious forum, no public figure too heinous to be turned away.
Some people have double standards because they are playing an ideological game. There were those who denounced eugenicist-racialist James Watson's continuing chancellorship at Cold Spring Harbor while applauding Ahmadinejad's forum at Columbia, and vice versa. There are those who gush over Muslim Brotherhood promoter Tariq Ramadan while demanding the head of radio bigot Don Imus. There are tenured professors who assert there were no gas chambers and professors who say that Stalin wasn't all that murderous. Deny them tenure, fire them, refuse to provide them with prestige, do not give them accolades, shame them, publicly shun them. (I'm not talking about legal persecution.) Some things are beyond the pale.
Antihumanist, your comments are astoundingly disingenuous.
If you doubt that the holocaust occured because "the past is inaccessible", read Michael Shermer's writings on the holocaust, and the convergence of evidence that supports the accepted account. I don't know of any religion that is supported by photos, motion pictures, accounts from still-living people, forensic evidence, building sites, etc.
"Why do people get so worked up about this?" Come on.
"How do you define truth in a universe where the past is inaccessible to us in the present?"
Holy Flirking Shnit this is one of the stupidest things I have ever heard. "The Past is inaccessible"?
1. Go to your local VFW hall.
2. Talk to the veterans there.
3. Specifically, ask them if any of them saw Treblinka, Dachau, or Auschwitz.
4. Ask them what they saw there.
4a. Ask them if they will ever forget the things and people they saw.
Stop trying to dress up your antisemitism as some sort of quest for truth and meaning.
T. Bruce McNeely: My stance on the holocaust is the same as my stance on all of human history. It is of no concern to me.
Jesse: Based on the evidence, the holocaust most likely happened. I'm curious though, why did you assume that I was a holocaust denier?
Anonymous (AKA antihumanist?) - Interesting answer. I really don't know what else to say.
Let me guess, antihumanist, you have a bunch of Feral Press books, listen to bands like Burzum and Blood Axis, and consider yourself one of the "elite."
I mean Feral House. Whatever. More profiling of 'antihumanist': Jim Goad, Dwid, LeVay, Whitehouse, James Mason, Death in June, Julius Evola. Typical misanthropy-rationalizing schlock. How did I do?
Also, I bet "antihumanist" is into the photographic art of Joel-Peter Witkin. Banal transgression.
What a badass, shrugging at the Holocaust. Why, he must be far above the herd, with terribly refined sensibilities.
I agree that denialism cheapens discussion and that there shouldn't be equal treatment to research vs. opinion, but sitting quietly by and saying nothing brought about the ID stickers and inclusion of ID being taught in schools because no one would show up to the school meetings and debate. There has to be a place for the debating of these subjects, whether it be ID, holocaust denialism, etc. What do you recommend?
"Jesse: Based on the evidence, the holocaust most likely happened. I'm curious though, why did you assume that I was a holocaust denier?"
How about your use of 'most likely' instead of certainly or definitely?
Colugo, I'm having to look on Wikipedia as I've never heard of, let alone have an interest in the things you think I should.
Jesse: I can't claim with certainty that the universe wasn't created 5 minutes ago. Can you?
"Jesse: I can't claim with certainty that the universe wasn't created 5 minutes ago. Can you?"
You just get dumber by the minute, don't you?
antihumanist, since you seem to have very severe problems making any sense at all, I'm going to ask you some very simple 'yes' or 'no' questions. That's all I want from you, 'yes' or 'no', not a mini-rant about the age of the universe.
1. Do you believe that the Nazis murdered countless Jews in concentration camps?
2. Are you an anti-semite?
I guess my attempt at profiling pegged you wrong, antihumanist. I thought you were a subcultural pop transgressive in training.
Are you the same individual who made this despicable comment in regard to Watson's remarks on African intelligence:
"Any group of people who would let a completely preventable disease such as AIDS destroy their population is stupid. ...
Posted by: antihumanist | October 19, 2007 12:41 AM"
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/10/cshl_acts_against_watson.php…
1. Do you believe that the Nazis murdered countless Jews in concentration camps?
Yes.
2. Are you an anti-semite?
No.
Colugo: I did indeed. Why is it a despicable comment?
Treblinka - Auschwitz - Eye witness evidence?
1. A scientist will look at the physical claims made - in the above case it is the logistics problem: transport - undress - gas - burn [in Treblinka's case an extra: - bury - exhume - burn].
2. Work out how long it would take to dispose of 800,000+ at Treblinka, and 4 million, sorry, since 1993 or thereabouts, only 1-1.5 million bodies.
3. Forget the rest - focus on the physical aspects and don't get involved in the ever emototional aspect of the Holocaust.
4. Then, look at Robert Jan van Pelt/Deborah Dwork's book at p 363-364 where it is stated that Krema I was decommissioned - what happened there was that krema I was prepared to symbolically represent what happened at Krema II - Auschwitz-Birkenau/AuschwitzII.
5. Then look at Fritjof Meyer's article in Osteuropa, May 2002, where the gassing allegedly occurred in two farm houses - about 300,000 persons.
6. And remind yourself of Gitta Sereny who stated in 2001 that Auschwitz was not a death camp - without suffering any persecution.
7. Now, take this information on board, together with the scientific maxim that science is not ABSOLUTE and anyn scientist will append an error to any results , then you will have to admit that your thinking is non-scientific but purely ideological
Think on these things.
Dr Fredrick T�ben
depp=true
notiz=[no holocaust denial allowed here crank]
Oh, goody. Arch Holocaust denier Frederick Toben has shown up. I'm envious. I've been writing about Holocaust denial and the idiocy of David Irving a lot longer than Mark has.
It's most amusing to see his comment disemvoweled, though. What a tool.
I find it very sad that so many in the university ghetto have abandoned the motto "I disagree with what you say but defend your right to say it" and adopted the motto "Athough I cannot prove that what you say is untrue, I oppose your right to say it."
As Sylvia Stolz points out, totalitarian attempts to proscribe opinion are doomed to failure in the age of the Internet.
I can prove what Irving and our visiting crank have said is untrue. And though I defend his right to say it, I will not allow such nonsense to be discussed in my forum.
One thing to keep in mind about Irving is that a British court is on record as calling him a Nazi sympathiser, a holocaust denier and less than honest.
Irving decided to sue Deborah Lipstadt and her publisher over claims she made in a book calling Irving a holocaust denier. The judge ruled against Irving on the grounds that he was a holocaust denier and thus she had an absolute defence against libel. The the judgement the judge also made it clear that he thought Irving was not an honest person and had deep seated Nazi sympathies. The judgement effectively marked the end of any claim Irving had to being a serious historian although at least one British historian, John Keegan, continues to praise his scholarship. Personally I would consider anything Irving has ever written as suspect. He may have got things right on occasions but the effort involved in working out what, and telling that apart from where he just lied is too much work. There other historians who have written about Dresden and Hitler's Generals who are honest and who have a good reputation for scholarship.
Antihumanist, not that it matters but I think your notions on the truth are amusing and interesting. You get plus points for getting some of the regulars to arch their backs. :-)
Caring for the absolute truth indeed. So selective are we.
They do not persecute people lock them up for years and even kidnap them across the Atlantic as they did with Ernst Zündel, Faurisson, Germar Rudolf etc. because they are telling lies.
They are persecuted because they go against powerful interests, money, politics, religion, Jews. Because their contributions to understanding the truth are dangerous!
The Jews are the real centre of the debate, and the holocaust is pushed in the name of the Jews, and the persecution of intellectual dissidents as well. The constant lobbying for more restrictive laws comes directly from Jewish and Zionist circles.
The Jews are also at the center in world politics, their interests take up a disproportional amount of attention and resources in the world.
That's the real reason for the taboo!
And Nick Griffin is ousted, not because he is 'racist', but because he is not yet a Zionist slave, like the more succesful anti-immigration parties in Europe. Those who pledge alliance to Israel and their holy holocaust are forgiven and can be accepted in the political mainstream.
We have a 'BNP' supported government in Denmark (for 6 years now) ! (Have you seen the concentration camps and the gas chambers yet? Have you seen the steets filled with brownshirts looking for foreigners to trash?)
Our Danish Peoples Party (14% of the vote third biggest party) are accepted, because the price for their evil nationalism is that they support Israel..
You can read more about some of my absolutely abhorrent thoughts and ideas and allegations of Jewish responsibility for restrictions of free speech in Europe and the US in this article for example.
http://blog.balder.org/?p=219
depp=true
notiz=[holocaust denial/racism/anti-semitism is not tolerated on this forum]
The first holocaust revisionist was the Frenchman Professor Paul Rassinier . Rassinier was himself interned at the Buchenwald-dora camp for the last 18 months of the war. he was later a member of the French National Assembly from the Socialist Party. Please remember that after the liberation of the camps in Germany proper ( Dachau, Bergen-Belsen, Buchenwald, Ravensbreuck, Mathaussen) it was claimed that there were gassing of prisoners by zyklon-b. One can go to youtube and find these US and British Army films in which this claim is made. The inmates were the sources of these stories as well as Jewish organisations in both the US and U.K. Now, Paul Rassinier confronted the various former inmates like himself who had written books about their expeiriences and had repeated this claim. It was this pressure from Rassinier that forced the Institute for Contemporary History and Yad Vashem to announce in 1960 that there were no gassings in Dachau, nor in any of the other camps located in Germany proper ! The camps where gassings were to have taken place was in the camps located in Poland ( Auschwitz, Treblinka, Sobibor, Majdanek) . But please remember there were survivor eyewitnesses who had made the claims that there were gassings at Dachau, Bergen-Belsen, Buchenwald, etc... ) So, the unsuspecting public was lied to for 15 years after the war about the gas chambers at the camps located in Germany proper. Just like the unsuspecting public was lied to about the soap made from Jewish cadavers and the lampshade made of human skin ! Why were we being lied to for 15 years about gas chambers at Dachau and about the human soap and lampshade. The revisionists have turned their attention to the camps located in Poland and are saying that there were no lethal gassings of anyone by anyone (Nazis) with zyklon-b which happens to be an insecticide because there are no facilities at these camps which upon expert examination (chemist) could possibly serve as a gas chamber where hundreds of prisoners could be asphyxiated at one time. Degesche, the company that since 1920 produced zyklon-b had technical data for the product. They must have researched its efficacy in killing lice and other insects . That is what the product was intended for !
Even US Customs imported zyklon-b in the 1930s to delouse Mexican migrant workers crossing the border to arrest the possible spread of disease carried by lice. Let us look at the claims of lethal mass gassings from a scientific perspective. the Germans did not have magic wands. They were constrained by the laws of physics and chemistry. We should critically think about what is being claimed and use common sense .
depp=true
notiz=[again, no holocaust denial here, get lost]
Yes, let's use common sense to rape the memories of the six million! Anne Frank rode a silver unicorn into the sunset! It's just fucking common sense, people! Whee!
You assholes make me sick.
Boris, no one is raping the memory of 6 million people ! Yad Vashem and Dr. Martin Broszat from the Institute for Contemporary History in Munich made the announcement that there were no gassings in Dachau-nor in any of the other camps located in Germany proper (Buchenwald, Ravensbreuck, Bergen-Belsen, Mathaussen) . You cannot get around this fact that it took 15 years to determine this . Why so long ?
Whose fault is it that the soap made from Jewish cadavers is a crude atrocity story ? Whose fault is it that the lampshade made of human skin is a crude atrocity story ? Is it not enough that people, disproportionately European Jews were deported to these concentration camps where they faced the increased risk of contracting typhus and other diseases
as well as facing chaotic conditions during the last months of the war during which many died from a lack of food and medicine ? Who has the right to "add" atrocity tales (gas chambers) to their drama ?
depp=true
Professor Paul Rassinier was a French Resistance member. He was arrested by the gestapo and sent to the Buchenwald-Dora camp. He wrote that his French comrades asked him why he was
"fighting" them on their memoirs . He wanted to tell the truth and in the process He exposed the atrocity tales and their authors for what they were : frauds . No amount of sufferring
can justify deceit !
depp=true
"Who has the right to "add" atrocity tales (gas chambers) to their drama?"
History has that right.
When gas chambers and these atrocities have been documented, studied, and verified by countless individuals you lose the ability to try to mitigate the events and the actions perpetrated by the Nazis against Jews.
Antisemite JM Damon says:
"totalitarian attempts to proscribe opinion are doomed to failure in the age of the Internet."
Welp, unfortunately this works highly against you.
You see, you denialists have no facts, no data to back up your claims. Just like in the case of creationists, the internet has made the ready attainment of facts/data very simple. This means that the tripe you parrot as 'truth' can be quickly and easily proven to be the utter, feckless bullshit that it is. There is no 'Totalitarian Attempt' to silence cretins like you. Rather, there are truths and there are lies and you and your ilk are being exposed as the liars you are, parroting garbage to try to cover up your antisemitism.
I wonder why we don't see censorship at scienceblogs when ID proponents post comments.
I have a running policy of not engaging cranks. However, I do have a sliding scale for enforcement. If there is some hope of improvement in the individual, I might try to bring them around.
When it comes to stupid bigots and holocaust deniers like you and the other worthless motherfuckers who showed up on this thread, I have zero tolerance.
It also is decidedly not censorship. This is my forum. You are free to spout your BS on your own goddamn website, but not under my nose.
Did you just call me a stupid bigot and holocaust denier, or was that directed at somebody else?
Umm... Yes? **DING DING DING*** We have a winner!
There's something else written here... something about if the shoe fits... I can't quite make it out.
I would have thought that my answers to Jesse's questions would disqualify me.
Jesse: Any local VFW guys wouldnt have been at Treblinka or Auschwitz; unless its the Moscow chapter of the VFW youre going on about.
You might read General Pattons diaries for references to Jews in German prison camps, both during the war and after 1945, but you wouldnt find a word about any holocaust against the Jews in Churchills six-volume History of WWII.
1. Go to your local VFW hall.
2. Talk to the veterans there.
3. Specifically, ask them if any of them saw Treblinka, Dachau, or Auschwitz.
4. Ask them what they saw there.
4a. Ask them if they will ever forget the things and people they saw.
Stop trying to dress up your antisemitism as some sort of quest for truth and meaning.
Posted by: Jesse |
Hmmm, maybe I wasn't paying attention antihumanist, but didn't you basically show up here and say there was no objective truth, people shouldn't get upset about holocaust denial, and then there's that fun quote about how Africans get AIDS because they're stupid. Further, we've learned not to believe the claims of good intentions from people who show up to cast doubt on the holocaust. If it's not outright denial, it's minimization, if it's not minimization, it's nonsense like Irving's claim that Hitler wasn't responsible, or that the Jews deserved it.
Let's see.
holocaust denial - check
bigotry - check
I'm done.
1. I see no evidence of an objective truth in our universe. Can you show me that such a thing exists?
2. If you disagree with that quote I would love to hear why.
3. Did you know that 60 million people die each year? Tell me why I should care whether or not a specific group of 6 million were killed more than 60 years ago.
Joseph needs to review Nizkor's Techniques of Holocaust Denial to see which ones he's parroting.
Really, Holocaust deniers are so dishonest, and they can't even get basic facts right.
For example, there were gas chambers at Dachau. In fact, they still exist. They were used for both delousing and homicidal purposes. However, it was mostly experimental, as Dr. Gutman of Yad Vashem described:
You should care because it's a well constructed teaching narrative that withstands the test of time. In 30 years, maybe sooner, we'll construct the teaching narrative that accompanies Iraq. (The Vietnam/Quagmire narrative was always pretty half-as*ed so it worked for a while, then collapsed under its own internal contradictions.)
We could spend our time participating in the current truth (like Iraq and/or Iran), but there's more depth and richness to reach back into history since history narrated isn't as subjective as the present.
60 million people die each year so you shouldn't care that 6 million were murdered, many tortured before dying? Great point. Millions of women have sex each year, so why should I care about the small number who are raped? Besides, since there's no objective truth, then maybe people actually enjoy torture! I know I must if I'm talking to denialist idiots.
Now that's a well supported argument.
Boris:
Why should I care about the small number who are raped? I care because they're alive.
It is possible that people actually enjoy being tortured and just act like they're in pain to fool us. Speaking as a human who can feel pain, this is probably not the case but I can't prove it.
For all of your bluster and moral outrage you didn't actually answer my question: Tell me why I should care whether or not a specific group of 6 million people were killed more than 60 years ago.
depp=true
notiz=[I think we're done talking with this crank too, get lost]
Oh wonderful.
Go look it up. We're not going to go over it so you can get off on the explanation.
As for soap and lampshades, they are irrelevant. Because George Washington did not chop down a cherry tree you cannot conclude that he was never president. Fine, the Bitch of Buchenwald only collected the skin of tattooed Jews and didn't decorate with it. That makes it better?
Now, fuck off.
Sorry, Mark. I promise not to respond to them anymore.
It's ok Boris, I was away from email for the day.
At this point I'm just deleting anything from them. If they keep it up I'll have them banned from the network. It's no loss.
Don't waste any thought on these individuals.
For some reason my comment appeared unreadable.
Allow me to try once more.
They do not persecute people lock them up for years and even kidnap them across the Atlantic as they did with Ernst Zundel, Faurisson, Germar Rudolf etc. because they are telling lies.
They are persecuted because they go against powerful interests, money, politics, religion, Jews. Because their contributions to understanding the truth are dangerous!
The Jews are the real centre of the debate, and the holocaust is pushed in the name of the Jews, and the persecution of intellectual dissidents as well. The constant lobbying for more restrictive laws comes directly from Jewish and Zionist circles.
The Jews are also at the center in world politics, their interests take up a disproportional amount of attention and resources in the world.
That's the real reason for the taboo!
And Nick Griffin is ousted, not because he is 'racist', but because he is not yet a Zionist slave, like the more succesful anti-immigration parties in Europe. Those who pledge alliance to Israel and their holy holocaust are forgiven and can be accepted in the political mainstream.
We have a 'BNP' supported government in Denmark (for 6 years now) ! (Have you seen the concentration camps and the gas chambers yet? Have you seen the steets filled with brownshirts looking for foreigners to trash?)
Our Danish Peoples Party (14% of the vote third biggest party) are accepted, because the price for their evil nationalism is that they support Israel..
You can read more about some of my absolutely abhorrent thoughts and ideas and allegations of Jewish responsibility for restrictions of free speech in Europe and the US in this article for example.
depp=true
notiz=[your comment was unreadable because I don't tolerate holocaust deniers on my forum, go spout your nonsense elsewhere]
You know, in his own odd way antihumanist actually poses an interesting question: why do we care about this, whereas people who believe in, to take an example from earlier in this thread, Pearl Harbor conspiracy theories are just dismissed flat-out as cranks?
Part of it, of course, is that Holocaust deniers have backing by all sorts of scary racist groups. Although, that beings up a point I've often wondered about: why would white supremacists, who freely admit to desiring things like violent racial war, want to put forward the idea that Hitler's Germany was unable to pull off the execution of 6 million Jews? Why do white supremacists wish to deny the Holocaust? Wouldn't embracing it be more their style?
I assume there's been research done on this somewhere, so I'm hoping someone will respond with a pointer or two.
1. Some things are morally beyond the pale beyond ordinary crankery, stupidity, dishonesty, and propaganda: Holocaust and other genocide denial, incitement to genocide, totalitarian advocacy, truly virulent racism and sexism (not run of the mill schmuckery), scapegoating and libelous conspiracy theories. They are simply indecent. (e.g. The Protocols of the Elders of Zion have been called the death warrant for the Holocaust.) There are all kinds of biomedical conspiracy theories and crankery, but directly telling a pregnant woman not to take HIV inhibitors is beyond the pale. Is there a continuum? Sure. But some things are just monstrous.
2. Holocaust denial simultaneously tries to nullify the crime, slanders the very victims of the crime and their family of being liars, and exonerates the perpetrators. So do 9/11 conspiracy theories - the USA did it to itself, in the minds of some removing sympathy for those Americans who had it coming anyway and by that logic al-Qaeda is innocent and being libeled. That's why they say it didn't happen or someone else did it: defend their heroes and blame the victims, while secretly gloating.
Gentlemen: Professor Arno Mayer from Princeton is Jewish. If in his book he states that "sources for the study of the gas chambers are at once rare and unreliable" , and you point out that the fumigation chamber at Dachau served a dual purpose but only on an experimental level as Professor Gutman explains, then perhaps Professor Mayer has examined the fumigation chamber and the statement the British pow made with respect to his conversation with Dr. Rascher and concluded that the evidence for this fumigation chamber to have acted as a gas chamber is "unreliable" . Again, please remember that according to witnesses, hundreds of people at one time were to be gassed. Then they were to be removed and another group would be herded into the gas chamber. All we have is the "confession" of former commandant Hoess of Auschwitz which was given to Soviet and Polish communist interrogators . Hoess even mentioned a camp named Wolzek, which I do not believe any such camp existed. Gentlemen, you have every right to believe in miracles, but you do not have the right to ram your beliefs down everyone else's throat !
depp=true