QAR 1:
A Reply to the IHR/Zündel's "Q&A" Number 1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. What proof exists that the Nazis practiced genocide or deliberately
killed six million Jews?
The IHR says (original, Samisdat, and revised versions combined):
None. The only evidence is the postwar testimony of individual
"survivors." This testimony is contradictory, and no "survivor"
claims to have actually witnessed any gassing. There are no
contemporaneous documents and no hard evidence whatsoever: no
mounds of ashes, no crematoria capable of disposing of millions
of corpses, no piles of clothes, no human soap, no lamp shades
made of human skin, no records, no credible demographic
statistics.
Nizkor replies:
Lie piled upon lie, with not a shred of proof.
This is as good a place as any to present some detailed evidence
which is consistently ignored, as a sort of primer on Holocaust
denial. It will make this reply much longer than the other
sixty-five, but perhaps the reader will understand the necessity
for this.
Let's look at their claims one at a time:
* Supposedly the only evidence, "the postwar testimony of
individual survivors."
First of all, consider the implicit conspiracy theory. Notice how
the testimony of every single inmate of every Nazi camp is
automatically dismissed as unconvincing. This total dismissal of
inmates' testimony, along with the equally-total dismissal of the
Nazis' own testimony (!), is the largest unspoken assumption of
Holocaust-denial.
This assumption, which is not often spelled out, is that the
attempted Jewish genocide never took place, but rather that a
secret conspiracy of Jews, starting around 1941, planted and
forged myriad documents to prove that it did; then, after the
war, they rounded up all the camp survivors and told them what to
say.
The conspirators also supposedly managed to torture hundreds of
key Nazis into confessing to crimes which they never committed,
or into framing their fellow Nazis for those crimes, and to plant
hundreds of documents in Nazi files which were never discovered
until after the war, and only then, in many cases, by sheer luck.
Goebbels' diary, for example, was barely rescued from being sold
as 7,000 pages of scrap paper, but buried in the scattered
manuscript were several telling entries (as translated in
Lochner, The Goebbels Diaries, 1948, pp. 86, 147-148):
February 14, 1942: The Fⁿhrer once again expressed his
determination to clean up the Jews in Europe
pitilessly. There must be no squeamish sentimentalism
about it. The Jews have deserved the catastrophe that
has now overtaken them. Their destruction will go hand
in hand with the destruction of our enemies. We must
hasten this process with cold ruthlessness.
March 27, 1942: The procedure is a pretty barbaric one
and not to be described here more definitely. Not much
will remain of the Jews. On the whole it can be said
that about 60 per cent of them will have to be
liquidated whereas only 40 per cent can be used for
forced labor.
Michael Shermer has pointed out that the Nazis' own estimate of
the number of European Jews was eleven million, and sixty percent
of eleven million is 6.6 million. This is fairly close to the
actual figure. (Actually, forty percent was a serious
overestimate of the survival rate of Jews who were captured, but
there were many Jews who escaped.)
In any case, most of the diary is quite mundane, and interesting
only to historians. Did the supposed Jewish conspiracy forge
seven thousand pages to insert just a few lines? How did they
manage to know Goebbels' affairs intimately enough to avoid
contradictions, e.g. putting him or his associates in the wrong
city at the wrong date?
As even the revisionist David Cole has admitted, revisionists
have yet to provide a satisfactory explanation of this document.
Regarding postwar testimony from Nazis, were they all tortured
into confessing to heinous crimes which they supposedly did not
commit? This might be believable if only a few Nazis were
captured after the war, or maybe if some had courageously stood
up in court and shouted to the world about the supposed attempt
to silence them. But hundreds testified regarding the Holocaust,
in trials dating from late 1945 until the 1960s. (For example,
see B÷ck, Hofmann, H÷ssler, Klein, Mⁿnch, and Stark.)
Many of these Nazis testified as witnesses and were not accused
of crimes. What was the basis for their supposed coercion?
Many of these trials were in German courts. Did the Germans
torture their own countrymen? Well, Holocaust-deniers sometimes
claim that the Jews have secretly infiltrated the German
government and control everything about it. They prefer not to
talk too much about this theory, however, because it is clearly
on the lunatic fringe.
The main point is that not one of these supposed torture victims
-- in fifty years, not one -- has come forth to support the claim
that testimony was coerced.
On the contrary, confirmation and reconfirmation of their
testimony has continued across the years. What coercion could
have convinced Judge Konrad Morgen to testify to the crimes he
witnessed at the International Nuremberg Trial in 1946, where he
was not accused of any crime? And to later testify at the
Auschwitz trial at Frankfurt, Germany, in 1963-65? What coercion
was applied to SS Doctor Johann Kremer to make him testify in his
own defense in 1947, and then, after having been convicted in
both Poland and Germany, emerge after his release to testify
again as a witness at the Frankfurt trial? What coercion was
applied to B÷ck, Gerhard Hess, H÷lblinger, Storch, and Wiebeck,
all former SS men, all witnesses at Frankfurt, none accused of
any crime there?
Holocaust-deniers point to small discrepancies in testimonies to
try to discredit them. The assumption, unstated, is that the
reader will accept minor discrepancies as evidence of a vast,
over-reaching Jewish conspiracy. This is clearly ludicrous.
In fact, the discrepancies and minor errors in detail argue
against, not for, the conspiracy theory. Why would the
conspirators have given different information to different Nazis?
In fact, if all the testimonies, from the Nazis' to the inmates',
sounded too similar, it is certain that the Holocaust-deniers
would cite that as evidence of a conspiracy.
What supposed coercion could reach across four decades, to force
former SS-Untersturmfⁿhrer Dr. Hans Mⁿnch to give an interview,
against the will of his family, on Swedish television? In the
1981 interview, he talked about Auschwitz:
Interviewer: Isn't the ideology of extermination
contrary to a doctor's ethical values?
Mⁿnch: Yes, absolutely. There is no discussion. But I
lived in that environment, and I tried in every
possible way to avoid accepting it, but I had to live
with it. What else could I have done? And I wasn't
confronted with it directly until the order came that I
and my superior and another one had to take part in the
exterminations since the camp's doctors were overloaded
and couldn't cope with it.
Interviewer: I must ask something. Doubters claim that
"special treatment" could mean anything. It didn't have
to be extermination.
Mⁿnch: "Special treatment" in the terminology of the
concentration camp means physical extermination. If it
was a question of more than a few people, where nothing
else than gassing them was worthwhile, they were
gassed.
Interviewer: "Special treatment" was gassing?
Mⁿnch: Yes, absolutely.
And what supposed coercion could reach across four decades, to
force former SS-Unterscharfⁿhrer Franz Suchomel into giving an
interview for the film Shoah? Speaking under (false) promises of
anonymity, he told of the crimes committed at the Treblinka death
camp (from the book Shoah, Claude Lanzmann, 1985, p. 54):
Interviewer: You are a very important eyewitness, and
you can explain what Treblinka was.
Suchomel: But don't use my name.
Interviewer: No, I promised. All right, you've arrived
at Treblinka.
Suchomel: So Stadie, the sarge, showed us the camps
from end to end. Just as we went by, they were opening
the gas-chamber doors, and people fell out like
potatoes. Naturally, that horrified and appalled us. We
went back and sat down on our suitcases and cried like
old women.
Each day one hundred Jews were chosen to drag the
corpses to the mass graves. In the evening the
Ukrainians drove those Jews into the gas chambers or
shot them. Every day!
Ask the deniers why they shrug off the testimony of Franz
Suchomel. Greg Raven will tell you that "it is not
evidence...bring me some evidence, please." Others will tell you
that Suchomel and Mⁿnch were crazy, or hallucinating, or
fantasizing.
But the fantasy is obviously in the minds of those who choose to
ignore the mass of evidence and believe instead in a hypothetical
conspiracy, supported by nothing but their imaginations.
That total lack of evidence is why the "conspiracy assumption"
almost always remains an unspoken assumption. To our knowledge,
there has not been one single solitary "revisionist" paper,
article, speech, pamphlet, book, audiotape, videotape, or
newsletter which provides any details about this supposed
Jewish/Zionist conspiracy which did all the dirty work. Not one.
At best, the denial literature makes veiled references to the
World Jewish Congress perpetuating a "hoax" (in Butz, 1976) -- no
details are provided. Yet the entire case of Holocaust-denial
rests on this supposed conspiracy.
As for the testimony of the survivors, which the "revisionists"
claim is the only evidence, there are indeed numerous testimonies
to gassings and other forms of atrocities, from Jewish inmates
who survived the camps, and also from other inmates like POWs.
Many of the prisoners that testified about the gassing are not
Jewish, of course. Look for instance at the testimony of Polish
officer Zenon Rozansky about the first homicidal gassing in
Auschwitz, in which 850 Russian POWs were gassed to death, in
Reitlinger, The Final Solution, p. 154:
Those who were propped against the door leant with a
curious stiffness and then fell right at our feet,
striking their faces hard against the concrete floor.
Corpses! Corpses standing bolt upright and filling the
entire corridor of the bunker, till they were packed so
tight that it was impossible for more to fall.
Which of the "revisionists" will deny this? Which of them was
there? Which of them has the authority to tell Rozansky what he
did or did not see?
The statement that "no 'survivor' claims to have actually
witnessed any gassing" is clearly false; this was changed to "few
survivors" in later versions, which is close to the truth.
But we do not need to rely solely on testimony, from the
survivors, Nazis, or otherwise. Many wartime documents, not
postwar descriptions, specifically regarding gassings and other
atrocities, were seized by the U.S. armed forces. Most are in the
National Archives in Washington, D.C.; some are in Germany.
Regarding the gassing vans, precursors to the gas chambers, we
find, for example, a top secret document from SS Untersturmfⁿhrer
Becker to SS Obersturmbannfⁿhrer Rauff (from Nazi Conspiracy and
Aggression, 1946, Vol. I, pp. 999-1001):
If it has rained for instance for only one half hour,
the van cannot be used because it simply skids away. It
can only be used in absolutely dry weather. It is only
a question now whether the van can only be used
standing at the place of execution. First the van has
to be brought to that place, which is possible only in
good weather. ...
The application of gas usually is not undertaken
correctly. In order to come to an end as fast as
possible, the driver presses the accelerator to the
fullest extent. By doing that the persons to be
executed suffer death from suffocation and not death by
dozing off as was planned. My directions now have
proved that by correct adjustment of the levers death
comes faster and the prisoners fall asleep peacefully.
And Just wrote of the gas vans to Rauff, on June 5, 1942, in a
letter marked both "top secret" and "only copy". This is a
horrific masterpiece of Nazi double-talk, referring to killing as
"processing" and the victims as "subjects" and "the load." (See
Kogon, Nazi Mass Murder, 1993, pp. 228-235.)
Since December 1941, for example, 97,000 were processed
using three vans, without any faults occurring in the
vehicles. ...
The normal capacity of the vans is nine to ten per
square meter. The capacity of the larger special Saurer
vans is not so great. The problem is not one of
overloading but of off-road maneuverability on all
terrains, which is severely diminished in this van. It
would appear that a reduction in the cargo area is
necessary. This can be achieved by shortening the
compartment by about one meter. The problem cannot be
solved by merely reducing the number of subject
treated, as has been done so far. For in this case a
longer running time is required, as the empty space
also needs to be filled with CO [the poison exhaust
gas]. ...
Greater protection is needed for the lighting system.
The grille should cover the lamps high enough up to
make it impossible to break the bulbs. It seems that
these lamps are hardly ever turned on, so the users
have suggested that they could be done away with.
Experience shows, however, that when the back door is
closed and it gets dark inside, the load pushes hard
against the door. The reason for this is that when it
becomes dark inside, the load rushes toward what little
light remains. This hampers the locking of the door. It
has also been noticed that the noise provoked by the
locking of the door is linked to the fear aroused by
the darkness.
Slip-ups occurred in written correspondence regarding the gas
chambers themselves, some of which, fortunately, escaped
destruction and were found after the war. A memo written to SS
man Karl Bischoff on November 27, 1942 describes the gas chamber
in Krema II not with the usual mundane name of "Leichenkeller,"
but rather as the "Sonderkeller" "special cellar."
And two months later, on January 29, 1943, Bischoff wrote a memo
to Kammler, referring to that same chamber as the
"Vergasungskeller." (See Gutman, Anatomy of the Auschwitz Death
Camp, 1994, pp. 223, 227.) "Vergasungskeller" means exactly what
it sounds like: "gassing cellar," an underground gas chamber.
Holocaust-deniers turn to Arthur Butz, who provides a specious
explanation for the Vergasungskeller: "Vergasung," he says,
cannot refer to killing people with gas, but only to the process
of converting a solid or liquid into gas. Therefore, he says the
"Vergasungskeller," must have been a special room where the fuel
for the Auschwitz ovens was converted into gas -- a "gasification
cellar."
There are three problems with this explanation. First,
"Vergasung" certainly can refer to killing people with gas; Butz
does not speak German and he should not try to lecture about the
language. Second, there is no room that could possibly serve this
function which Butz describes -- years after writing his book, he
admitted this, and helplessly suggested that there might be
another building somewhere in the camp that might house a
gasification cellar. Third, the type of oven used at Auschwitz
did not require any gasification process! The ovens burned solid
fuel. (See Gutman, op. cit., pp. 184-193.)
So what does the term "gassing cellar" refer to?
Holocaust-deniers have yet to offer any believable explanation.
An inventory, again captured after the war, revealed fourteen
showerheads and one gas-tight door listed for the gas chamber in
Krema III. Holocaust-deniers claim that room was a morgue; they
do not offer to explain what use a morgue has for showerheads and
a gas-tight door. (See a photograph of the document, or Pressac,
Auschwitz: Technique and Operation, 1989, pp. 231, 438.)
A memo from the Auschwitz construction office, dated March 31,
1943, says (Hilberg, Documents of Destruction, 1971, pp.
207-208):
We take this occasion to refer to another order of
March 6, 1943, for the delivery of a gas door 100/192
for Leichenkeller 1 of Krema III, Bw 30a, which is to
be built in the manner and according to the same
measure as the cellar door of the opposite Krema II,
with peep hole of double 8 millimeter glass encased in
rubber. This order is to be viewed as especially
urgent....
Why would morgues have urgently needed peepholes made out of a
double layer of third-of-an-inch-thick glass?
The question of whether it can be proved that the cyanide gas was
used in the Auschwitz gas chambers has intruiged the deniers.
Their much-heralded Leuchter Report, for example, expends a great
deal of effort on the question of whether traces of cyanide
residue remain there today. But we do not need to look for
chemical traces to confirm cyanide use (Gutman, op. cit., p.
229):
Letters and telegrams exchanged on February 11 and 12
[1943] between the Zentralbauleitung and Topf mention a
wooden blower for Leichenkeller 1. This reference
confirms the use of the morgue as a gas chamber:
Bischoff and Prⁿfer thought that the extraction of air
mixed with concentrated prussic acid [cyanide] (20 g
per cu m) required a noncorroding ventilator.
Bischoff and Prⁿfer turned out to be wrong, and a metal fan ended
up working acceptably well. But the fact that they thought it
necessary demonstrates that cyanide was to be routinely used in
the rooms which deniers call morgues. (Cyanide is useless for
disinfecting morgues, as it does not kill bacteria.)
Other captured documents, even if they don't refer directly to
some part of the extermination process, refer to it by
implication. A captured memo to SS-Brigadefⁿhrer Kammler reveals
that the expected incineration capacity of the Auschwitz ovens
was a combined total of 4,756 corpses per day (see a photograph
of the document or Kogon, op. cit., p. 157).
Deniers often claim that this total could not be achieved in
practice (see question 45). That's not the point. These
crematoria were carefully designed, in 1942, to have sufficient
capacity to dispose of 140,000 corpses per month -- in a camp
that housed only 125,000. We can conclude that massive deaths
were predicted, indeed planned-for, as early as mid-1942. A camp
designed to incinerate its full capacity of inmates every four
weeks is not merely a detention center.
Finally, apart from the abundant testimonies, confessions, and
physical evidence of the extermination process, there is
certainly no want of evidence of the Nazis' intentions and plans.
Here are just a few examples. Hans Frank's diary (from Nazi
Conspiracy and Aggression, 1946, Vol. I, pp. 992, 994):
But what should be done with the Jews? Do you think
they will be settled down in the 'Ostland' [eastern
territories], in [resettlement] villages? This is what
we were told in Berlin: Why all this bother? We can do
nothing with them either in the 'Ostland' nor in the
'Reichkommissariat.' So liquidate them yourself.
Gentlemen, I must ask you to rid yourself of all
feeling of pity. We must annihilate the Jews, wherever
we find them and wherever it is possible, in order to
maintain the structure of the Reich as a whole. ...
We cannot shoot or poison these 3,500,000 Jews, but we
shall nevertheless be able to take measures, which will
lead, somehow, to their annihilation....
That we sentence 1,200,000 Jews to die of hunger should
be noted only marginally.
Himmler's speech at Posen on October 4, 1943 was captured on
audiotape (Trial of the Major War Criminals, 1948, Vol. XXIX, p.
145, trans. by current author):
I refer now to the evacuation of the Jews, the
extermination of the Jewish people. This is one of
those things that is easily said: "the Jewish people
are being exterminated," says every Party member,
"quite true, it's part of our plans, the elimination of
the Jews, extermination, we're doing it."
The extermination effort was even mentioned in at least one
official Nazi court verdict. In May 1943, a Munich court wrote in
its decision against SS-Untersturmfⁿhrer Max Taubner that:
The accused shall not be punished because of the
actions against the Jews as such. The Jews have to be
exterminated and none of the Jews that were killed is
any great loss. Although the accused should have
recognized that the extermination of the Jews was the
duty of Kommandos which were set up especially for this
purpose, he should be excused for considering himself
to have the authority to take part in the extermination
of Jewry himself.
And Hitler spoke quite clearly in public on no fewer than three
occasions. On January 30, 1939, seven months before Germany
invaded Poland, he spoke publicly to the Reichstag (transcribed
from Skeptic magazine, Vol. 2, No. 4, p. 50):
Today I want to be a prophet once more: if
international finance Jewry inside and outside of
Europe should succeed once more in plunging nations
into another world war, the consequence will not be the
Bolshevation of the earth and thereby the victory of
Jewry, but the annihilation of the Jewish race in
Europe.
By the way, this last phrase is, in German, "die Vernichtung der
jⁿdischen Rasse in Europa," which German-speakers will realize is
quite unambiguous.
In September, 1942:
...if Jewry should plot another world war in order to
exterminate the Aryan peoples in Europe, it would not
be the Aryan people which would be exterminated but
Jewry...
On November 8, 1942:
You will recall the session of the Reichstag during
which I declared: if Jewry should imagine that it could
bring about an international world war to exterminate
the European races, the result will not be the
extermination of the European races, but the
extermination of Jewry in Europe. People always laughed
about me as a prophet. Of those who laughed then,
countless numbers no longer laugh today, and those who
still laugh now will perhaps no longer laugh a short
time from now.
There are many other examples of documents and testimonies that
could be presented.
Keep in mind that the IHR's answer to "what proof exists?" is
"none." It has certainly been demonstrated already that this pat
answer is totally dishonest. And this is the main point we wish
to communicate: that Holocaust-denial is dishonest.
We continue by analyzing the remaining, more-specific, claims
about what evidence supposedly does not exist.
* "No mounds of ashes" is an internal contradiction. In an article
in the journal published by the same IHR that publishes these
Q&A, the Journal's editor reported that a Polish commission in
1946 found human ash at the Treblinka death camp to a depth of
over twenty feet. This article is available on Greg Raven's web
site.
(Apparently some survivors claimed that the corpses were always
thoroughly cremated. Because uncremated human remains were mixed
with the ash, the editor suggested that the testimonies were
false. Amazingly, he had no comment on how a twenty-foot layer of
human ashes came to be there in the first place. Perhaps he felt
that to be unworthy of mention.)
There are also piles of ashes at Maidanek. At Auschwitz-Birkenau,
ashes from cremated corpses were dumped into the rivers and
swamps surrounding the camp, and used as fertilizer for nearby
farmers' fields.
* "No crematoria" capable of disposing of millions of corpses?
Absolutely false, the crematoria were more than capable of the
job, according to both the Nazis' own internal memos and the
testimony of survivors. Holocaust-deniers deliberately confuse
civilian, funeral-home crematoria with the huge industrial ovens
of the death camps. This is discussed in much detail in the
replies to questions 42 and 45.
* "No piles of clothes"? Apparently, the IHR considers piles of
clothes to be "hard evidence"! This is strange, because they do
not deny the other sorts of piles found at Nazi camps: piles of
eyeglasses, piles of shoes (at Auschwitz, Belzec, and Maidanek),
piles of gold teeth, piles of burned corpses, piles of unburned
corpses, piles of artificial limbs (see Swiebocka, Auschwitz: A
History in Photographs, 1993, p. 210), piles of human hair (ibid,
p. 211), piles of ransacked luggage (ibid, p. 213), piles of
shaving-brushes (ibid, p. 215), piles of combs (ibid), piles of
pots and pans (ibid), and yes, even the piles of clothes (ibid,
p. 214) that the IHR claims do not exist.
Perhaps the authors of the 66 Q&A realized that it was dangerous
for them to admit that these piles were hard evidence, because
then they would also be forced to admit a number of other things
as "hard evidence." Perhaps this is why they removed this phrase
from the revised 66 Q&A.
If items were not generally found in mass quantities, it is only
because the Nazis distributed them to the German population. A
memo on this was captured, revealing that they even redistributed
women's underwear.
* "No human soap"? This is true, but misleading. Though there is
some evidence that soap was made from corpses on a very limited
experimental scale, the rumored "mass production" was never done,
and no soap made from human corpses is known to exist. However,
there is sworn testimony, never refuted, from British POWs and a
German army official, stating that soap experiments were
performed, and the recipe for the soap was captured by the
Allies. To state flatly that the Nazis did not make soap from
human beings is incorrect.
* "No lamp shades made of human skin?" False -- lampshades and
other human-skin "ornaments" were introduced as evidence in both
trials of Ilse Koch, and were shown to a U.S. Senate
investigation committee in the late 40s. We know they were made
of human skin because they bore tattoos, and because a
microscopic forensic analysis of the items was performed. (A
detailed page on this is being prepared.)
* "No records"? This is nonsense (which may explain why this claim
was removed from the "revised" versions of the 66 Q&A). True,
extermination by gassing was always referred to with code-words,
and those victims who arrived at death camps only to be
immediately gassed were not recorded in any books. But there are
slip-ups in the code-word usage that reveal the true meanings, as
already described. There are inventories and requisitions for the
Krema which reveal items anomalous with ordinary use but perfect
for mass homicidal gassing. There are deportation train records
which, pieced together, speak clearly. And so on. Several
examples have been given above.
* "No credible demographic statistics"? This is the second internal
contradiction -- see question 2 and question 15. The
Anglo-American committee who studied the issue estimated the
number of Jewish victims at 5.7 million. This was based on
population statistics. Here is the exact breakdown, country by
country:
Germany - 195,000
Austria - 53,000
Czechoslovakia - 255,000
Denmark - 1,500
France - 140,000
Belgium - 57,000
Luxemburg - 3,000
Norway - 1,000
Holland - 120,000
Italy - 20,000
Jugoslavia - 64,000
Greece - 64,000
Bulgaria - 5,000
Rumania - 530,000
Hungary - 200,000
Poland - 3,271,000
USSR - 1,050,000
Less dispersed refugees (308,000)
Total number of Jews killed 5,721,500
(This estimate was arrived at using population statistics, and
not by adding the number of casualties at each camp. These are
also available -- for instance, a separate file with the ruling
of a German court regarding the number of victims in Treblinka is
available. The SS kept rather accurate records, and many of the
documents survived, reinforced by eyewitness accounts).
Some estimates are lower, some are higher, but this is the
magnitude in question. In an article in CMU's student newspaper,
the head of CMU's History Department, Peter Stearns, is quoted as
saying that newly discovered documents -- especially in the
former USSR -- indicate that the number of victims is higher than
six million. Other historians claim not much over five million.
The Encyclopedia of the Holocaust uses 5,596,000 as a minimum and
5,860,000 as a maximum (Gutman, 1990, p. 1799).
* In summary:
"Revisionists" often claim, correctly, that the burden of proof
is on historians. The proof, of course, has been a matter of
public record since late 1945, and is available in libraries
around the world. The burden has been met, many, many times over.
You've just seen a brief presentation of some of the highlights
of that immense body of proof; much more is readily available.
To even argue that the Holocaust never happened is ludicrous. To
claim straight-faced that none of this proof even exists is
beyond ludicrous, and it is a clear example of "revisionist"
dishonesty.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[ Index | Next ]
The Nizkor Project
webmaster@nizkor.org
Director: Ken McVay OBC
Writers: Daniel Keren, Jamie McCarthy, and John Morris
Financial Support
August 24, 1996
- Bjørn Stærk, staerk@fix.no