thhp an essay by Richard J. Green
home Web Version 5.4.
[ ] Previous versions of this article have been posted to the
alt.revisionism newsgroup. A previous version also resides
search at http://www.nizkor.org/features/techniques-of-denial/blue.html.
[ ] This version reflects more recent research on the topic.
An overview of the the "forensic" reports can be foundat
For a more comprehensive discussion see The Chemistry of [ ] Auschwitz.
We have received an avalancheof emails in a matter of two hours.
----- Original Message -----
From: Richard J Green <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 19,2001 8:04 PM
Subject: copyright infringement
To whom it may concern,
The page, http://aaargh.vho.org/engl/opponents/greenblue.html,is my intellectual property. By hosting this page, you are infringingupon my copyright. I am instructing you to remove this page within5 days.
HALF an hour later
----- Original Message -----
From: John Drobnicki <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 19,2001 8:33 PM
Subject: Copyright violation
To whom it may concern:
On your web site at
you have reproduced an articlewritten by me on the acquisition of Holocaust-denial materialsby libraries. You may not know it, but that article was publishedin Public & Access Services Quarterly, Vol. 1, No. 1 (1995):5-40, and is copyrighted by myself and The Haworth Press <http://www.haworthpressinc.com/>.Permission for it to appear on the Nizkor Project server, andONLY the Nizkor Project server, was granted by me. I have notconsented for it to appear on your web site.
By hosting this page, youare infringing upon my copyright. Thus, I am instructing you toremove the file from your server within 5 days. Please
note that I am not concernedwith the rest of your site and am in no way trying to censor yourexpression; I only want my own copyrighted material to be removed.You may feel free to replace the file with a link to Nizkor'sauthorized version:
I thank you in advance foryour cooperation.
John A. Drobnicki AssociateProfessor & Head of Reference Services York College, The CityUniversity of New York http://www.york.cuny.edu/~drobnick/ "Ispeak for no one but myself."
TWO hours later:
From: <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 19,2001 9:49 PM
Subject: Copyright Violation
I have recently learnedthat VHO, like aaargh before it, is violating copyright material.You may be aware that aaargh was kicked off of its site for theseviolations. If VHO does not remove the below cited material, Iwill file the following complaint with Rietta.
It has come to my attentionthat Rietta is the ISP for the website which has reproduced thefollowing: http://aaargh.vho.org/fran/techniques/bodydisposal.html.
Please be advised that Iam the author of this essay and never gave permission to haveit reproduced. Therefore, my copyrights have been violated. Iam a member of the California bar and unless this material iswithdrawn I will file a lawsuit against Rietta. You should alsobe aware that aaargh was kicked off by its prior host for violatingthe copyrights of a number of authors, including myself. Othervilations are as follows.
http://aaargh.vho.org/engl/hay/hayindex.html[incl. Hayward's entire thesis]
http://aaargh.vho.org/fran/inst/bib/NIZKORlibraries.html[my thesis] http://aaargh.vho.org/engl/dl/dlindex.html [Dr. Lipstadt'sentire book] http://aaargh.vho.org/engl/opponents/greenblue.html[Rich Green's essay] http://aaargh.vho.org/engl/opponents/PVNEichpaper.html[article by Vidal-Naquet]
All of these authors willbe filing a class action lawsuit unless the situation is remediedimmediately.
John C. Zimmerman
First of all, M. Zimmermanis a liar. He is inventing "that aaargh was kicked off ofits site for these violation". This is pure nonsense. A companybought a company and the whole domain, of which aaargh was a parthas been wiped out by the new owners. There was no explanation,no warning, no demand. We did not bother to ask for reasons. Pureand simple censorship.
Secondly, we do not believein the existence of "intellectual property". We believethat educated people have to share their views and ideas withthe rest of mankind, as ideas are a common property of the humanrace. "Intellectual property" is a legal concept, which,beyond its intrinsic absurdity, has its role in economy. It isrecognized by courts and we know it. But consider how 30 millionpeople have joyfully trampled the so-called intellectual propertyof musicians in appropriating music with Napster.
Thirdly, we have systematicallyintroduced, on our website, views which are opposed, or highlycritical of the views we support. We have conceived this website,more than 4 years ago, as an arena for a very important intellectualdebate on several historical and political questions. We believein the virtue of examination, discussion and comparison. We arerationalists and we believe that we may find common grounds withthose whom we perceive and who perceive us as intellectual enemies.This is all the more necessary because we deal with events repletewith human sufferings, violent deaths, and all sorts of horrors.Our adversaries are totally unable to follow us in the field ofopen discussion.
Four, we do not extractany material benefit from this activity as we sell nothing. Displayinga text from one of our adversaries costs us some energy and asmall amount of money. There is no way to retrieve this energyand this money which are given away free to readers and peopleinterested in trying to make up their mind about difficult subjects.
Five, we respect authorshipand "intellectual property" by always attributing theresponsability of texts to authors. We name them, and advise ourreaders to buy, whenever possible, the texts we display, frompublishers and bookshops. We just received M. Zimmerman book andin our "April actualities" we'll advise readers to buyit. But this could escape Mr. Zimmerman who unfortunately cannotread French or German.
Six, there is here an obviousconspiracy. No chance that these messages could be sent independently.It seems Mr Zimmerman wants to build a case and is trying to getsupport in consorting with colleagues at Nizkor or similar sites,which are dedicated to the struggle against revisionists. Thesepeople made a habit, for this purpose, to distort revisionistviews which they do not allow on their site. Mr. Zimmerman himselfis grossly distorting revisionist views at almost every page ofhis writings. Our readers will appreciate this absolute lack ofintellectuel honesty.
We are requested by Zimmermanand Cy to censor their own writing. We'll gladly comply. We havenot found much, in Mr Zimmerman's writings, to be be proud of,and we understand that he wishes to restrain the number of hisreaders.
Seven, to limit ourselvesto the case of Mr. Zimmerman, a Las vegas lawyer, an amateurishhistorian, a linguistic invalid, who pretends to be the first(!!!) to refute revisionist arguments (he says in his jargon "denier"although we deny nothing, we maintain views different from his),we thought that we could spend some time and energy in enteringa discussion with him and elaborating a critique of his writingsto which our reader would take part in being able to visualizehis contribution and our response to it.
Obviously, this perpectivemakes Mr. Zimmerman fret a lot. His attitude smacks very muchof intellectual cowardice. It is his right to make a fool of himselfin showing how frightened he is by the very debate he is conductingin his book for over 400 p.! We are not part of that bigotry.
Let's wipe away Zimmermanand his likes back to their own obscurity.
21 March 2001
This document has not been peer-reviewed.
Copyright © 1997, 1998 Richard J. Green. Allrights reserved.
Technical contact: webmaster-at-holocaust-history.org
This text has been displayed on the Net, and forwarded to youas a tool for educational purpose, further research, on a noncommercial and fair use basis, by the International Secretariatof the Association des Anciens Amateurs de Recits de Guerres etd'Holocaustes (AAARGH). The E-mail of the Secretariat is <aaarghinternational-at-hotmail.com.Mail can be sent at PO Box 81475, Chicago, IL 60681-0475, USA..
We see the act of displaying a written document on Internet asthe equivalent to displaying it on the shelves of a public library.It costs us a modicum of labor and money. The only benefit accruesto the reader who, we surmise, thinks by himself. A reader looksfor a document on the Web at his or her own risks. As for theauthor, there is no reason to suppose that he or she shares anyresponsibilty for other writings displayed on this Site. Becauselaws enforcing a specific censorship on some historical questionapply in various countries (Germany, France, Israel, Switzerland,Canada, and others) we do not ask their permission from authorsliving in thoses places: they wouldn't have the freedom to consent.
We believe we are protected by the Human Rights Charter:
ARTICLE 19. <Everyone has theright to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includesfreedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receiveand impart information and ideas through any media and regardlessof frontiers.>The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adoptedby the United Nations General Assembly on December 10, 1948, inParis.