text:
No. 22 (Apr.)
David Cole Responds to Henri Roques and Robert Faurisson
This is the first page of an 8-page salvo that David Cole unleashed against Henri Roques and Robert Faurisson. If you want to read the rest of the letter drop a couple bucks in the post and I'll mail it to you.
(BRS)
The charges made by monsieur Roques don't interest me nearly as much as the history behind this missive. I will digress for a moment before returning to M. Roques and his letter. This whole episode actually began with Professor Robert Faurisson. Since I became known as part of the revisionist "movement," Faurisson has been relentless in his personal attacks against me. Since the' more I came to know Faurisson's work, the less I respected him as a serious scholar, I never worried myself about these attacks any more than I concerned myself over the myriad of cheap shots taken at me from both ends of the Holocaust spectrum: Neo-Nazis and racists on the "right" have traditionally claimed that I am a Jewish "agent" involved in a grand scheme to destroy revisionism from within. Various Jewish and non-Jewish journalists and activists on the "left" have claimed that I am in fact a NAZI agent, involved in a grand scheme to "deny" history and, I suppose, help Nazis in some way (these conspiracy theories are rarely fleshed out beyond the initial charge of being an "agent" of some kind). I despise ideological dogma with a passion, and I've long held that if you're hated by extremists of all stripes and from all corners, than you must be doing something right, so I actually came to take these attacks as being unwitting compliments.
Faurisson first attacked my "Piper" video by stating that since he, Faurisson, had already told the world that Krema 1 in its present state was not genuine, no more dialogue on the subject was needed. Dr. Piper's admissions were unnecessary, because the "word" of Faurisson should be enough to convince anybody. Now, by that time I had come to believe, after a thorough investigation of Faurisson's claims, that the "word" of Faurisson should, instead, be immediately suspect. Besides, the point of the "Piper" tape was to show that a world renown Holocaust scholar—someone who is NOT a revisionist—admits that Krema 1 is not genuine. The opinions of revisionists were irrelevant in this context. The fruit of the "Piper" tape was that after its release the Auschwitz State Museum changed its spiel and now tourists are told that the interior of Krema 1 in its present state is a post-war remodeling job.
There was something troubling about Faurisson's assertion that I need not have investigated Krema 1 because he had already made his pronouncement on the issue, and therefore it is now dead. In fact, many of the points Faurisson and other revisionists have made about Krema 1 are dangerously fraudulent. I'll give you my opinion of a few of Faurisson's favorite points: The fact that the "Zyklon B induction chimneys" are not gas tight is irrelevant because we know they were added after the war. The fact that the door on the southeast side of the room is not gas tight (and has no glass in the peephole) is likewise irrelevant, as we know that this door was added AFTER the supposed "gas chamber" phase of this room. Also irrelevant is the wall in front of this door, that blocks the view from the peephole. This wall was added after the "gas chamber" phase. The flimsy wooden door, also on the southeast side, is irrelevant because it, too, was added after the "gas chamber" phase. And the fact that the door on the northwest side has panes of glass in it is moot because there was once a dividing wall on that side of the room, in which was located the door that would have been the door to the "gas chamber." This wall was knocked down erroneously by the Soviets, who were trying to restore the room to what they believed it looked like during its "gas chamber" phase. That there is a doorway without a door, or evidence of hinges, which leads to the crematorium ovens is irrelevant because a door
Editor's note: A short while later, Cole wrote an even longer letter (twice as long: 16 pages) which he asked Bradley to distribute instead. See Smith's statement to that effect in SR #29 (p. 2). That 16-page letter was first published online at http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/c/cole.david/cole-vs-faurisson-struthof, and it goes as follows.
[p. 1]
The charges made by Monsieur Roques don't interest me nearly as much as the history behind this missive. I will digress for a moment before returning to M. Roques and his letter. This whole episode actually began with Professor Robert Faurisson. This digression is necessary because, in other to understand the genesis of the Roques letter, one must first understand my experiences with Robert Faurisson. Even since I became known as part of the revisionist "movement," Faurisson has been relentless in his personal attacks against me. Since the more I came to know Faurisson's work, the less I respected him as a serious scholar, I never worried myself about these attacks any more than I concerned myself over the myriad of cheap shots taken at me from both ends of the Holocaust spectrum: Neo-Nazis and racist on the "right" have traditionally claimed that I am a Jewish "agent" involved in a grand scheme to destroy revisionism from within. Various Jewish and "anti- revisionist" journalists and activists on the "left" have claimed that I am in fact a NAZI agent, involved in a grand scheme to "deny" history and, I suppose, help Nazis in some way (these conspiracy theories are rarely fleshed out beyond the initial charge of being an "agent" of some kind). I despise ideological dogma with a passion, and I've long held that if you're hated by extremists of all stripes and from all corners, then you must be doing something right. So I actually came to take these attacks as being unwitting compliments.
Still, since this recent attack by Faurisson (the Roques letter, which was actually commissioned by Faurisson, but more on that later) is his most public yet, and since several people are asking for a response from me, I figured I might as well tackle all of Faurisson's previous charges all at once, since I've never offered a public response to any of them before (I've written quite a few private responses, though). I apologize for the length of this response, but I'd like to be able to take the time to be specific, VERY specific, about Faurisson's current and previous charges and my responses to them.
In November 1992, after Bradley Smith announced my forthcoming "Dr. Piper" video, Bradley was subjected to several lengthy faxes from Professor Faurisson attacking the video (and attacking me), even though Faurisson had never even SEEN the video in question. These faxes were sent to Bradley and a host of other revisionists, but NOT to me, even though I was the subject of the faxes and the object of Faurisson's wrath. Faurisson attacked my "Piper" video by stating that since he, Faurisson, had already told the world that Krema 1 in its present state was not genuine, no more dialogue on the subject was needed. Dr. Piper's admissions were unnecessary, because Faurisson's assurance that Krema 1 is not in its original state should be enough to convince anybody. Now, by that time I had come to believe, after a thorough investigation of Faurisson's claims, that any "assurance" from Faurisson should not be uncritically accepted, but rather immediately suspect. Besides, the point of the "Piper" tape was to show that a world renown [sic] Holocaust scholar - someone who is NOT a revisionist - admits that Krema 1 is not in its original state. The opinions of revisionists are irrelevant in this context. The fruit of the "Piper" tape is that after its release the Auschwitz State Museum changed its spiel and now tourists are told that the interior of Krema 1 in its present state is a post-war remodeling job.
There was something troubling about Faurisson's assertion that I need not have investigated Krema 1 because he had already made his pronouncement on the issue, and therefore it is now dead. In fact, many of the points Faurisson has made about Krema 1 are dangerously fraudulent. I'll give you my opinion of a few of Faurisson's favorite points: The fact that the "Zyklon B induction chimneys" are not gas tight is irrelevant because we know they were added after the war. The fact that the door on the southeast side of the room is not gas tight (and has no glass in the peephole) is likewise irrelevant, as we know that this door was added AFTER the supposed "gas chamber" phase of the room. Also irrelevant is the wall in front of this door, that blocks the view from the peephole. This wall was added after the "gas chamber" phase. The flimsy wooden door, also on the southeast side, is irrelevant because it, too, was added after the "gas chamber" phase. And the fact that the door on the northwest side has panes of glass in it is moot because there was once a dividing wall on that side of the room, in which was located the door that would have been the door to the "gas chamber." This wall was knocked down erroneously by the Soviets, who were trying to restore the room to what they believed it looked like during its "gas chamber" phase. That there is a doorway without a door, or evidence of hinges, which leads to the crematorium ovens is not in and of itself evidence against gassings because a door DID once exist that led from the morgue into the cremation room. The current doorway without a door is the post-war Soviet creation. And the fact that the chimney is not connected to the building is not relevant because we know that there was at one time a chimney there, and that it was connected to the building, and that cremations did in fact take place in this building, AND MOST IMPORTANTLY that the tour guides have always honestly represented this chimney as a reconstruction, so we can't make the charge of fraud.
As I wrote in a January 1993 letter of response to Faurisson's charges (a letter also sent to Mark Weber, because Weber had also been a recipient of Faurisson's fax) "Revisionists want it both ways; they want to A) claim that Krema 1 in its present state is a post war creation and B) use Krema 1's present state as proof that gassings couldn't have occurred in it." In other words, there are certain things in Krema 1 that we can't use as negative evidence for gassings (that is, if we're honest), because they were added after the war. We must always concentrate on the state of the room DURING THE TIME PERIOD WHEN THE GASSINGS ARE SAID TO HAVE TAKEN PLACE.
Faurisson's point that there couldn't be a gas chamber next to the crematorium ovens (the gas would "ignite") is questionable, but this has already been dealt with exhaustively by Fritz Berg, although I think I should add that Faurisson's response to Pressac's claim that there were homicidal gas chambers in Kremas 4 and 5 is that the term "gaskammer," [sic] which Pressac finds in some paperwork concerning these Kremas, must have meant _delousing_ gas chamber. By giving this explanation, Faurisson therefore admits that one COULD conceivably have a gas chamber of some kind in a crematorium without risking explosion. In order for Faurisson to explain Pressac's points about Kremas 4 and 5, he must by necessity contradict his oft-used point about the impossibility of using Zyklon B near cremation ovens. Also, I should note that Faurisson admits that Krema 1 was fumigated with Zyklon B. I'm assuming that he agrees that these fumigations didn't result in any explosions.
Perhaps Faurisson's best-loved point about Krema 1, that it would have been dangerous to locate a gas chamber across the street from the SS barracks, restaurant, and hospital, is pure nonsense. Zyklon B is lighter than air and would rise straight up when ventilated. It would not journey across the street and enter under doors. The proof of this is the fact that not only were the regular Zyklon delousing complexes right next door to barracks where Nazis and inmates alike slept, worked, and ate, but some of the living quarters in the Auschwitz Main Camp actually had Zyklon B delousing rooms INSIDE them - and on the first floor no less. When these delousing rooms would be ventilated, the windows on the second floor would simply be closed.
And as I mentioned before, Faurisson admits that Krema 1 was fumigated (and fumigated enough times to leave the traces of Zyklon B that still exist in the walls). I'm assuming that Faurisson agrees that when Krema 1 was ventilated after the fumigations, the escaping Zyklon didn't kill everyone in the SS buildings across the street.
Humorously, while Faurisson has harped on these futile points for years, he's neglected the manhole in the center of the Krema 1 morgue room (as has his former buddy Pressac).
Now, for the record, I don't believe that there were ever gassings in Krema 1, but that doesn't mean that I'm going to use false claims to make my point.
As I added in my January '93 letter to Mark Weber, "I think that in my video I presented better points casting doubt on the existence of a gas chamber, but unlike Faurisson I realize the difficulty of proving a negative (i.e. presenting a piece of evidence that "disproves" a gas chamber) and, as I have mentioned to you in the past, I am not so convinced by some of Faurisson's other "evidences," like his misleading use of steam autoclaves and American (execution) gas chambers to "disprove" Krema 1." By this last point I was referring to Faurisson's standard introductory point when speaking of Krema 1. I had the privilege (?) of producing a videotape of Faurisson's "introduction to Holocaust revisionism," and, as I had seen so many times before, he led off with this marvelous piece of sleight of hand: He'll show a picture of an American execution gas chamber, with its heavy round oval shaped door with a round wheel-shaped handle, and its various exhaust pipers [sic] and other gauges, and THEN he'll show a picture of a STEAM AUTOCLAVE at Auschwitz, which he'll FRAUDULENTLY MISREPRESENT as a Zyklon B delousing chamber and which _superficially resembles the execution chamber_ with its oval shaped door, round wheel-shaped handle, and various pipes and guages [sic]. He'll point out the resemblance, and then he'll show a picture of KREMA 1, making his point by saying "you see, this resembles neither the execution chamber nor the delousing chamber - no heavy round metal door, no wheel-shaped handle. Why, Krema 1 is just an ordinary room! It COULDN'T be a gas chamber because it is not designed like the execution and delousing chambers!"
With this piece of deception, Faurisson takes advantage of the ignorance of his audience with the ease of an "exterminationist." After all, who but a Holocaust scholar would know to point out that the autoclave is for STEAM not Zyklon B, and that A) Zyklon B COULD INDEED be used in rooms that were "just ordinary rooms," since Zyklon was designed for fumigating ordinary rooms (see the DEGESCH Zykon [sic] manual), and B) that many of the delousing rooms at
Auschwitz and other camps WERE "just ordinary rooms." As I already mentioned, several rooms in the Auschwitz Main Camp barracks were "retrofitted" to be Zyklon B delousing rooms. Now, a Zyklon B HOMICIDAL chamber could certainly be an "ordinary" room, PROVIDING that the victims could not escape, that there was some way to introduce the Zyklon into the room, and that there was some way to ventilate the room afterwards. The temperature of the room would heavily influence the speed with which the Zyklon evaporated. Faurisson takes advantage of the irrelevant resemblance of the execution chamber and the stream [sic] autoclave to fool his audience. He is FORTUNATE that no "exterminationist" has ever been interested enough in the forensic arguments of revisionists to actually TEST these autoclaves for the Zyklon residue that Faurisson must surely believe would be present. I would ask why FAURISSON has never tested these autoclaves, as he seems so sure that Zyklon was used in them (his trip to Auschwitz with Leuchter would have been the perfect time for this).
Faurisson's "Krema 1 couldn't have been a gas chamber because it doesn't resemble the American execution chambers or the German autoclaves" argument relies on two pieces of trickery: 1) Faurisson relies on the fact that most non-scholars won't know that the autoclaves in question used STEAM not Zyklon B, and 2) Faurisson knowingly misrepresents the type of rooms that were COMMONLY used as Zyklon B delousing rooms. I'll quote Faurisson from his interview with "Storia Illustrata" (August 1979; the interview was reprinted in the IHR "Journal," Winter 1981) - and I'll add that this specious argument had been ENDLESSLY repeated by Faurisson right up until the present; indeed, Faurisson eagerly repeated it for the videotape I shot in October '92. "Just a glance at one of these small gas chambers (an American execution gas chamber), constructed in order to kill a single condemned man, renders ridiculous those premises of stone, wood, and plaster which are represented as being former German 'gas chambers.' If the American gas chambers are made exclusively of steel and glass, then it is for reasons of good sense and for reasons more specifically technical. The first reason is that the acid has a tendency to adhere to the surface and even to penetrate certain materials, so therefore it is necessary to avoid such materials. The second reasons is that, when the ventilators empty the chamber of air, there is a risk of implosion, so therefore the structure has remarkably thick walls of steel and glass. The very heavy steel door can only be closed with a handwheel."
IT IS PRECISELY BECAUSE THE GERMANS _DID NOT_ "AVOID" CERTAIN MATERIALS THAT WE FIND DELOUSING ROOMS AT AUSCHWITZ MAIN CAMP, BIRKENAU, MAJDANEK AND STUTTHOF THAT ARE COVERED IN BLUE STAINS. The majority of delousing rooms at these camps are ordinary rooms made of brick, mortar, stone, wood, and plaster. And Faurisson knows this very well. Have revisionists been hallucinating all these years as we've taken forensic samples of these materials from delousing rooms? Faurisson is QUITE aware that the Germans had delousing rooms that were made of materials to which the Zyklon B adhered and penetrated. And these rooms saw a TREMENDOUS amount of usage (especially as Auschwitz), but to my knowledge there was never an "implosion."
From November '92 to February '93 Faurisson sent several faxes about me and the "Piper" tape to a variety of revisionists. He also asked that Bradley publish one of these faxes in "Smith's Report," which Bradley agreed to do. One of his charges against me was that my interview with Piper was irrelevant because he (Faurisson) had in 1976 obtained an unrecorded confession from Auschwitz State Museum official Jan Machalek that the cremation ovens were not genuine. I responded to Faurisson by telling him that the OVENS were not the issue: My video had to do with the remodeling of the MORGUE ROOM, the room said to be the "gas chamber." This was clear from everything Bradley or I had ever written or said about the "Piper" take; the ovens were never mentioned. That the ovens presently displayed are not original is less of a concern because A) the museum personnel explain that the ovens are not original, B) we know that there were ovens in that room when the building was used as a crematorium, and C) the ovens on display are similar to the ones that were once there. I pointed out to Faurisson that my tape tackled a separate issue; the remodeling of the morgue room. Well, sometime after Faurisson had received my response, his fax started turning up again (it was re-submitted to "Smith's Report" for publication AND sent via fax and mail to more revisionists) WITH SEVERAL KEY WORDS CHANGED. Faurisson had ALTERED his fax and CHANGED the story of his meeting with Machalek, replacing the word "oven" with "gas chamber."
As Faurisson has done so many times with various Holocaust texts, I'll compare and contrast the text of the two faxes:
Fax of November 9, 1992
"On April 23, 1975, Mr. Machalek, of the Auschwitz Museum, had to confess that in Krema 1 the ovens were "reconstructed" (he said in German: 'rekonstruiert'). First he had answered me that they were genuine ('echt') but, when I showed him that there was no soot, he said 'rekonstruiert.' Then I asked him: 'In conformity with the original pattern?' He replied: 'Yes.'" This is where the story ends. Nothing about gas chambers. In fact, the story about the soot and the ovens is a standard Faurisson story. I'd heard him tell it many times before.
Fax of January 9, 1993
NOW the story has changed; "ovens" have become "gas chambers" (in this passage Faurisson refers to himself in the third person, as he does several times in his various faxes): "It is in 1975 that R. Faurisson forced a responsible of the Auschwitz State Museum, Jan Machalek, to say that this so-called 'gas chamber' was not 'genuine' (in German: 'echt') but 'reconstructed' (in German: 'rekonstruiert'). Consequently, Faurisson asked 'reconstructed according to the original plan?' and Machalek replied yes." Unless Faurisson is suffering from the same confusion apparent in many non-scholars who routinely confuse or conjoin the gas chambers and the crematorium ovens (often referring to "gas ovens"), he knows very well that the ovens and the gas chamber are two completely different things. Faurisson altered his story to fit his attack against me.
Faurisson's FIRST version is the same story he told at the first Zundel trial in Ontario, Canada, February 4, 1985:
Faurisson: "I got first into the place called 'Krematorium.' There were there two furnaces with two openings."
Doug Christie (Zundel's lawyer): "What did you do?"
Faurisson: "I noticed some things which were not normal."
Christie: "What did you notice? Tell us what you noticed."
Faurisson: "I noticed, for example, that there was no soot at all."
Christie: "How did you find that out?"
Faurisson: "Putting my finger like that, I saw that there was no soot."
Christie: "Inside the furnace?"
Faurisson: "Yes."
Christie: "All right."
Faurisson: "So I decided to find the highest possible responsible..."
Christie: "Person."
Faurisson: "...person, of the Auschwitz Museum."
Christie: "And then what did you do?"
Faurisson: "I found that man called Jan Machalek. I asked him to come on the spot. I asked him if those ovens were genuine or not."
Christie: "Yeah. Don't tell us what he said. What did you then ask him for?"
Faurisson: "I can say that I showed all the same that there was no soot?"
Christie: "Yes."
Faurisson: "Okay. The conclusion was that it was a reconstruction, a rebuilding and no something genuine."
Every time I've heard Faurisson tells the Jan Machalek story, this is the way I've heard him tell it. In fact, the "soot-less" finger story is quite well known. But as I have just shown, Faurisson isn't above altering his own texts if the situation requires, changing key words in his November 14 fax to better facilitate his attack against my "Piper" video.
I bring this us because this is exactly the kind of thing that Faurisson would criticize if done by an "exterminationist." And for those of you who are thinking that I'm being too hard on Faurisson, I'll remind you that it is and always has been FAURISSON who's taken his problems with me public, never once giving me the chance to reply or even asking for my side of things. And in the fact of this latest Faurisson attack, his most widely distributed yet, (the Struthof charge), I think people have a right to know the history behind this recent offensive.
So now let's move on. When Ernst Zundel began making good use out of the "Piper" tape (and making good use out of me at the same time, I might add - something that is entirely my fault), Faurisson (according to Zundel) threw a screaming fit because Zundel dared to use my work instead of his - in fact, Faurisson threatened to give Zundel the permanent silent treatment if he didn't re-edit the "Piper" tape to reduce my present and increase Faurisson's, which Zundel did! (Right or wrong, Bradley and I gave Zundel the rights to use the Piper footage as he saw fit. As a result there are two different versions of this tape floating about - mind and Zundel's. This has caused some confusion; and once again, it's entirely my fault). Faurisson's childish behavior was even more laughable because it was predicated on the assumption that there was some kind of fight over Zundel's affections! Hell; dealing with Zundel to such an extent was a huge mistake on my part. If Faurisson WANTS Zundel he can HAVE him!
Faurisson has burdened Bradley Smith and Dr. Robert Countess with this childish feud, sending numerous angry faxes to Bradley and once (the day after the 12th IHR conference) demanding that Bradley "summon" me to IHR headquarters so that I could be lectured to by Faurisson about who's boss in the revisionist jungle. Faurisson has never had the guys to make such phone calls himself. He likewise had poor Dr. Countess call me to pass on Faurisson's insulting comments - all the while as Faurisson sat in Dr. Countess' living room making sure he said the right things! Faurisson's a grown man; if he has a problem with me, he can tell me so himself. He has my phone and fax number, and we've been together in the same room many times.
But Faurisson has never expressed any criticisms of my factual arguments. His complaints are always that I am "needlessly" examining something about which Faurisson has already rendered "final" judgment (this couldn't be more like an "exterminationist": indeed, Faurisson has repeatedly claims - as in his recent IHR conference speech - that the time for investigating is over. The answers - Faurisson's answers - are all final. Shades of Lipstadt. I would counter that the search for answers has barely begun), or that I am part of some great Jewish "conspiracy." This "conspiracy" claim has recently become his favorite. He has lent his name to a Willis Carto pamphlet (Carto, of course, now claims that the entire IHR is run by the ADL) stating that I am a Jewish agent whose motives are not to be trusted. This pamphlet was passed out in one form by Carto supporters at the 12th IHR conference last year, and was reproduced in another form in the "Spotlight."
Amazingly, while I was in France last year Faurisson called all or most of the French revisionists and told them to avoid me at ALL costs, NOT to talk to me, NOT to meet me, NOT to be interviewed by me - because I am a "Jewish spy" working in cahoots with the French government to entrap and jail French revisionists! (Tristan Mordrel informed me of Faurisson's actions).
For a man who has perhaps the world's most demanding definition of "proof" when it comes to homicidal gas chambers, I would ask Faurisson just what proof does he have that I am a "spy" for anybody? He's NEVER offered anything resembling evidence. But Faurisson's charges aren't based on any evidence; they're utilitarian in nature - Faurisson doesn't like me, so he fabricates a "Jewish spy" story because I'm Jewish. At this point it would be easy to charge Faurisson with "anti-Semitism," but I think that's a cop-out. Faurisson has acted in a similarly childish fashion against OTHER revisionists, non [sic] of whom are Jewish. Usually, Faurisson feuds with people who disagree with him. I can specifically point to the example of Fritz Berg, who was blackballed from the 12th IHR conference by Faurisson, who gave Mark Weber an "either Fritz goes or I go" ultimatum. Fritz was only restored to the roster after an 11th hour intervention by Andrew Allen (I hate to say it, but I think Mark's decision to let Fritz back in was due more to the crisis that resulted from a rash of speaker-cancellations. I think Mark needed speakers, and this time Faurisson would just have to give in). To hear Fritz tell it, Faurisson has been hard at work keeping Fritz' articles out of revisionist publications. And Fritz' crime? He dares to point out some of Faurisson's factual errors.
So now we come to the Struthof matter. When I returned from my "good news/bad news" trip to Europe last year (good news for me; I got more research done than ever before. Bad news for Bradley; no footage for any new videos. Good news for me; I no longer had any interest in doing videos for Bradley or anyone else - as Bradley can confirm) Bradley asked me to recount the details of the robbery at the Struthof camp. I did, and Bradley wrote of the details in his "Smith's Report." And once that issue of "Smith's Report" hit the stands, so to speak, guess who Bradley heard from via fax? It was Robert Faurisson with yet another conspiracy charge! But this one was quite unlike the fairly tame letter from Henri Roques; Faurisson charged that the robbery story was a figment of my Jewish imagination. I had "survivor" envy. Being a Jew, I had a fantasy about being violated in some way while being in a "gas chamber," so I invented the story in order to now be able to call myself a gas chamber "survivor," and hit up the gullible goyim for money. You see, when inventing my story dealing with the theft from my rental car, I chose as the location of my rental car the area outside the gas chamber because it resembled the "Birkenau 'Rampe'" - this way I could re-enact the stories of Nazi guards abusing Jews by "seizing all their belongings that had been left, on the Birkenau 'Rampe,' in railway cars or in lorries." What a brilliant interpretation! "I leave it to psychanalysts (sic) to study such an invention coming from a Jew" he wrote. "I do not wish to see anyone judaizing (sic) revisionism by putting in it Jewish stories." Faurisson claimed that Roques supported this theory.
Faurisson went on to say that my motive for coming up with this story was money. The fact that only one paragraph earlier he'd written that my motive was a sick need to emulate a gas chamber victim didn't seem to bother him at all. Why not have TWO motives?! That can only help the theory. So Faurisson says that my gameplan was to fake a robbery story in order to make money: "(Cole) gets out of the Struthof 'gas chamber' as a survivor and then makes publicity and money out of his extraordinary adventure...." But Faurisson is wise to me; "It looks like the usual phantasmagoria and the usual Shoah-business."
Damn...And I've have gotten away with it, too, if it wasn't for that intrepid Frenchman!
Bradley told Faurisson that he wanted something published in "SR," it would have to be 1) less insulting, and 2) written by someone who was actually there at Struthof with me.
But what Faurisson initially sent to meet this standard was NOT a text written by someone who was present (Roques), but a "digest" of Monsieur Roques' views, still written by Faurisson. But this version, the "digest" version as we shall call it, differed considerably from Faurisson's "Jewish Holocauat [sic] survivor envy" version. NOW the robbery wasn't entirely dismissed as a figment of my Jewish imagination...and NOW the motive of "money" was absent, replaced by a NEW motivating factor, "carelessness(?)." Faurisson concludes the "digest" version by writing that "Mr. and Mrs. Roques think" that I am trying to implicate the guards to cover up my own "carelessness." But what carelessness is Faurisson referring to? He never explains. He just makes the charge, in the name of Henri Roques and his wife, and then he lets it drop. I'm not sure what I did that was "careless" (in fact, I'm much more culpable of "carelessness" in MY version of events at Struthof, giving my name and other information to the camp officials, then allowing my car to be out of my sight in the presence of one of the guards), but then Faurisson doesn't seem to be fond of such petty details. This "digest" version is indeed less insulting than the "Holocaust survivor envy" version, but since Bradley's insistence was on a version AUTHORED by someone present at Struthof, a NEW version was required.
So Faurisson sent another letter, this one signed "Henri Roques," You see, as Faurisson told Bradley, Roques doesn't write English (quite true) so Faurisson had to actually write this letter, even though it is a translation of Roques' views. I don't doubt this, by the way, but I feel sure that, where he in _my_ shoes, Faurisson (being the scrupulous "document-criticizer" that he is) would surely balk at having never seen the Roques French-language original! (Just kidding; I'll gladly accept Faurisson's translation as being accurate)
But Roques gives a slightly different line than Faurisson. Perhaps because he is aware that there was a police investigation into the robbery, Roques doesn't want the dismiss the entire thing as a product of my Jewish noggin. Or maybe Roques isn't quite audacious enough to dismiss the whole story as "survivor envy." And any talk of Faurisson's claim that I am attempting to extort money from the revisionist community is likewise absent. But where's the charge of "carelessness"? Gone, along with any speculation about motive. We've seen a steady change in the conspiracy theory, from "malice" (the "survivor envy" and "extortion" angle of the "extreme" version), to "negligence" (the "carelessness [sic] charge in the "digest" version), to the lack of motive speculation in the "Roques" version.
So what we get from Roques (by way of Faurisson) is a somewhat wishy-washy letter compared to Faurisson's fiery attack against me as a Jew. his [sic] charge of extortion, and his ambiguous charge that I am trying to cover up some sort of "carelessness." So what can I say in response to M. Roques? In a way, I'd prefer not to reply at all (I'll come back to this later).
I'm not going to be a hypocrite; I question eyewitness testimony all the time, so I'm not going to make a fuss if people don't believe my version of events. I have a police report, but it consists only of what I (and my camerawoman) told the gendarmes, who refused to question any other parties. So if the police report supports my version, it's still not really proof of anything. I have the support of my camerawoman, but then wouldn't she naturally support my side, being my friend? (For the record, she's not Jewish. In fact, she's German - but what does THAT prove? Just another case of a Jew dominating a German, right?!) All the same, there are a few points worth making:
Pierre Guillaume is himself at odds with Roques over the number of guards. I clearly remember the second guard staying. My camerawoman and I left the gas chamber while everyone else was still inside (we wanted to get an early start to Paris). After walking to the car and seeing the results of the theft, I ran back toward the gas chamber to tell everyone else. It was here that I saw the second guard still standing around outside the chamber. This is the main reason that I can't help but believe that the guards were involved: There is simply NO WAY that the second guard could have been outside the gas chamber and NOT witnessed the break in. It's very important to understand the surroundings. The gas chamber building is located about five minutes AWAY from the Struthof camp. And the gas chamber is closed to ALL TOURISTS. The camp and the chamber are both located at the top of a mountain, and hour away from Strasbourg. The day of my visit the temperature was freezing, and the high altitude of the mountain made it unbearable to be outside. This is easily provable via the footage I took at the camp; everyone is bitching about the cold, and as Tristan Mordrel and I are huddled together in a phone booth, calling the Struthof camp officials (who have offices in Strasbourg, NOT on the Struthof grounds), Pierre Guillaume and my camerawoman are huddled together in the public urinal...ANYWHERE to escape the cold!
Struthof is not a well-traveled camp in the best of times...but on THAT day, it was practically deserted (exacerbated by the fact that I was there the one day of the week that the nearly restaurant is closed). There is only ONE ROAD leading to the gas chamber. ANYONE standing outside or sitting in a car (it is possible that the second guard might have been sitting in his car because of the cold) would certainly see ANYONE coming down the road.
Roques' idea that the bags were taken but not the camera equipment because "it is easier to get away with bags than with a tripod" ("easier to get away with bags than with some camera equipment" - "digest" version) suggests that the thieves had to CARRY the booty - whereas we all agreed at the time that the thieves had to have DRIVEN. Would Roques suggest that the thieves HIKED up the mountain on foot, in freezing temperatures, in the hopes of finding the rental cars of tourists who would be sequestered in the gas chamber building - even though this building is barred to ALL tourists at ALL times - and, amazed at their incredible luck of having hiked up the mountain just to arrive at the gas chamber THE ONE TIME there are actually tourists in it, LOADED themselves down with bags, then hiked BACK down the mountain again carrying four heavy bags? No offense to M. Roques, but this is one thesis definitely NOT worthy of a doctorate. We not only all agreed that the thieves had to have driven down the road to the gas chamber building, but in fact M. Mordrel, my camerawoman, and I IMMEDIATELY drove down the road in the vain hope of catching up to the car of the thief or thieves. And, as M. Mordrel
accompanied me and my camerawoman to the nearest police station, Pierre Guillaume AND M. Roques and his wife drove up and down the mountain road looking for anything that might have been tossed out of a car window.
And when I say those bags were "heavy," I mean HEAVY. One bag had, mixed in among papers, notebooks, and other stuff, the TOOLS I used to obtain certain forensic samples from certain camps. These tools included about five chisels, two hammers, two mallets, picks, and stud detector. Anyone who's ever done any location videotaping knows the necessity for camera batteries. I had brought twenty batteries with me on the trip. At the time of the robbery, I had two of them with me in the gas chamber, eight were lying on the back seat of the car (among the camera equipment that wasn't stolen), and ten were mixed in with another bag, making THAT bad extremely heavy, too. Hiking down the mountain loaded with all that stuff would've been quite an ordeal...but as I've said, the notion that the robbers were on foot was the furthest thing from ANYONE'S mind at the time. If we HAD thought of that, we surely would have proceeded after the robbers on foot (after all, we had only been in the chamber a short while, and the robbers were weighed, down [sic] so how far could they have gotten?) instead of driving down the mountain road after their car, as we did. I would suggest that Monsieur Roques is advancing the "robbers were on foot" theory because he understand that there WAS a second guard outside the chamber the whole time...and it is easier to suggest that this second guard was innocently aware of the thief (thieves?) if the thief was on foot, perhaps crawling through the tall grass like a snake. There is no way to excuse the second guard if the thieves drove, because the second guard could not have missed the car coming down the single access road to the gas chamber.
I'm not trying to say that I know for certain what happened; I've NEVER asserted that I know for certain. But I AM saying that I believe I had good reason to advance the theory of the guards' involvement (good reason that did not include extortion, survivor hallucinations, or a "carelessness coverup").
The notion that this all might have been an "anti-revisionist operation" was initially Mordrel's, and even Roques admits that he initially had the same idea. Mordrel's argument against this theory, voiced later, was that if MY car was broken into, why not also Pierre Guillaume's car and the Roques' car? They are even more infamous in France and would be tantalizing targets for any anti-revisionist plot. Agreed. But what we would later realize is that only MY presence had been announced to the guards and camp officials. I had to negotiate with the Director and Curator of the Struthof Museum in order to get my gas chamber tour. I presented my I.D., and it was arranged for me to come back (perhaps giving the officials time to check my credentials? I don't know) and get a personal tour under the supervision of the guards. No one knew that Roques or Guillaume would be present, and they made their presence known to no one.
But as to whether or not the theft was directed against me AS A REVISIONIST, I cannot say. I have always advocated another possibility: The guards knew that a Jewish American tourist was to get a personal tour. Forgive me for dealing in stereotypes, but such a tourist would most certainly appear to be a good target for a robbery. That civil servants like these guards might have seen this opportunity is by no means out of the question; indeed, it is
standard police procedure to at least entertain the idea of an inside job during most robberies, mainly because these inside jobs are not at all uncommon. And adding the facts that the second guard would have had to have seen a car come down the road, and that the thieves happened to come by the gas chamber - a building that anyone acquainted with the area understands is NEVER open to tourists - just at the time that we were all inside, I think it is not unreasonable to entertain the notion of an inside job. In fact, it is a notion that I strongly suspect to be true.
Whether the robbery was for money or for some other purpose is presently not knowable.
By the way, I based my claim that Madam Roques had her purse in her car on the statement of M. Mordrel, who told me that it was odd that no other cars were broken into because Pierre had his "briefcase" in his car, and Madam Roques had her "bag" in her car. If I misunderstood "bag" to be "purse" I'm sorry. Perhaps it was a different type of bag. It was Mordrel who first pointed out how it was "very strange" that the things left in the other cars were not taken. But even this does not necessarily point to me being singled out because I had been fingered as a revisionist. Tourists are usually preferred by criminals for a variety of reasons (including the fact that they usually don't stick around too long to pursue a lengthy investigation).
Also for the record, I'll mention that as far as Faurisson's claim that my motive for staging this "hoax" was money, Bradley can attest to the fact that I am no longer interested in selling products through revisionist circles (in fact it has been - and still is - BRADLEY who so dearly wants more video). In exchange for the fact that there would be no video coming out of this last Europe trip, I gladly absorbed the huge cost overrun caused by the robbery and several other unforeseen calamities. Although Bradley has offered to help defray these costs with money from our "D&B Productions" account, I have still refused to bill him. The total of these costs, NOT INCLUDING MEALS (which I have never bothered to tally) is approximately $5,500.00. Add to that the $4,000.00 that I reimbursed my camerawoman because of her losses due to the robbery (her actual losses came to about $200.00. The rest was "guilt money" - money to alleviate my guilt because many of the things she lost had great emotional value), and you get almost $10,000 in expenses that I'm covering. Revisionism for me has never been for profit. I take it for granted that revisionism COSTS money...only a fool EXPECTS money from all this.
Bradley conducted a video interview with me, where I recounted the details of the robbery, as a means of explaining to his closest supporters just what happened on my trip. The video was Bradley's idea; in fact he made me do the same thing after my '92 trip - and I say "made" because getting me to sit still for one of these pointless exercises is like pulling teeth - just ask Bradley. The video from my '92 trip has never been sold, just given free to Bradley's closest supporters. The video of my last trip, which is hardly designed as a salable product as it has no titles and is completely unedited (it's exactly what was shot, frequent stoppages and all), was also given free to Bradley's closest supporters. I have not made one cent out of it, and, if you want to be precise, I've lost a few dollars if you count the Hi8 videotape of the master and the VHS copy for Bradley.
Forgive me for bringing this "money" issue up...but I felt a need to respond to Faurisson's charge.
If you've been paying attention you'll remember that there are THREE versions of this Struthof charge going around (the "extreme" version, the "digest" version, and the "Roques" version). I don't know which one Faurisson presently believe in, but I DO know that he is sending around all three versions, though to my knowledge no one person has received all three (Faurisson seems to choose a version for each recipient, and his decision-making process is a mystery to me: a certain left-leaning revisionist has been sent the "extreme" survivor-envy version, and a "racialist" publication has been sent the milder "Roques" one. To me, this seems backwards).
And that, as they say, is that...at least as far as this latest Faurisson charge goes. Now, I said earlier that I might have preferred not answering this charge at all. My way of looking at it is this; if Faurisson's charge helps disentangle me (and my not-so-good name) from the racist/anti-Semitic/neo-Nazi far right, if these folks stop trumpeting me and my work out of a believe in Faurisson's charge that I'm a money-grubbing spy, then my life will become a whole lot easier. The fact that I've received a lot of play in the far-right press is very much my own fault; I'm not blaming anybody else. All the same, though, I've never been pleased with the situation I found myself in. Each time I stressed my opposition to racism or Nazism, each time I stressed that my revisionist views were the product of intellectual curiosity and not pro-fascism, I was embraced even closer by the far-right because, after all, who better to have as an ally than someone from the opposing camp? And those far-rightists who did level charges against me of "Jewish spy" were always too small to be taken seriously be [sic] the far-right community in general.
But now that Robert Faurisson is going public with his conspiracy theory, perhaps now people will start to listen. Maybe now certain far-rightists will not be so quick to broadcast my videos or write glowing articles about me, out of a fear that they will be accused of helping me in my conspiratorial shenanigans! I say, let Faurisson be heard by all! Those who will believe his charges are, almost by definition, just the kind of people I DON'T want calling me, supporting me, or promoting me.
In fact, my recent debate with Faurisson over the Struthof gas chamber has started to produce just such a deteriorating effect among my (ahem) "supporters." For the uninitiated, after I returned from Europe last year Faurisson sent yet ANOTHER fax to Bradley, this time repeating the charge he made after the "Piper" video. David Cole did not have to go to Struthof, he wrote, because Faurisson had already solved that question once and for all: There is no Struthof homicidal gas chamber! No need for any more research. Faurisson has spoken.
Well, in reality Faurisson has benefited from the fact that the Struthof camp officials keep that gas chamber building closed off to everyone. For decades we had to rely on his description of that building. That was one reason I fought so hard to see it for myself. And it was by no means a surprise to me when, after seeing the building for myself, I realized that Faurisson has been misrepresenting it for years. So I answered Faurisson's "there is no more problem with the Struthof 'gas chamber'" charge with a lengthy response in "Smith's Report," in which I not only criticized Faurisson's methodology
but I ALSO made the claim that I think there is a very high probability, based on my own strict standard of documentary evidence, that the Struthof gas chamber was indeed used to kill Jews (and even if I am wrong in my belief about the high probability of homicidal gassings in this building, I feel that my points about Faurisson's many MISREPRESENTATIONS about the Struthof gas chamber are airtight, since all I did was compare and contrast various contradictory Faurisson texts).
And you should hear the fallout since my "Smith's Report" article about Struthof and Faurisson! Nasty letters to me from my former (huh, huh) "supporters," and nasty letters to Bradley Smith for publishing my article. In fact, several supporters have apparently abandoned Bradley entirely! It is with great humor and no sadness that I observe how folks who only months earlier were giving me ridiculous praise as a "great man" are now giving me equally ridiculous scorn for being a "turncoat" now that I've dared to stray from the standard dogma. What happened, guys? Where'd my "greatness" go? Two years ago you were ready to carve my likeness on Mount Rushmore (or should that be Stone Mountain?), and now I'm persona non grata. And while I'm thankful for the diminishing support, I'm truly perplexed by the SURPRISE that some of you are showing about my Struthof statements. Stop acting like you've been hustled, guys. From day one I made it clear that I'm a leftist, race-mixing, atheistic Jew who has no allegiance to any dogma and who'd gladly agree that there were gas chambers if only the proof could be found. It's not my fault if some of you thought that I was only saying those things to fool the public and that privately I was "one of you." I was in fact being completely truthful (look, I'm as skeptical as the next guy but take my word for it, you CAN believe SOME things you read). I was NEVER "one of you." I never sought to be a "movement" guy. And I never sought to mislead. Keep that in mind before any of you penalize poor Bradley any further.
While brings me (finally!) to my last point - and it's probably the most important point I'll make. After Bradley published my Struthof gas chamber article, he gave Faurisson an April 20 deadline to send a response. That was a month and a half ago, and as of yesterday (April 20) Faurisson has failed to send ANY response. Perhaps Faurisson doesn't realize this, but there are many revisionists who are waiting with baited breath [sic] for the great Faurisson to demolish that SOB Cole. Everyone should be made aware that Faurisson has thus far failed to respond. And what HAS Faurisson done? He's sent copies of the Cole conspiracy theory letter to any and every revisionist or right-wing publication whose address or fax number he has. And he still wants Bradley to publish the charge in "Smith's Report" (which Bradley will do). You see, THAT'S Faurisson's response to my Struthof gas chamber article; to attack me personally. He's refused to address any of my points about the Struthof gas chamber. Once again, he's taken a page out of the "exterminationist" book by responding to factual points with personal attacks. He's refused to send Bradley any response to my Struthof article (even though Bradley has asked several times since initially giving Faurisson the April 20 deadline). In fact, Faurisson has failed to respond to my Struthof gas chamber article, even after the April 20 deadline. Bradley was confused, but I reminded him that Faurisson's "response" to Fritz Berg's points about Zyklon B was to try to "blackball" Fritz, so I assured Bradley that there was nothing new about Faurisson's tactics here. But Faurisson is highly, and humorously, mistaken if he thinks he's "harming" me by trying to get be blackballed by the far
right. In fact Faurisson's timing couldn't be more impeccable. And while Faurisson may be doing me a favor by helping to end the far-right's fascination with me, I certainly hope that all the revisionists who idolize Faurisson to the point of taking his claims on faith and as gospel will not allow it to go unnoticed that Faurisson has taken this route for his "response." Is this the behavior one expects from a revisionist? It is certainly the behavior one would expect from Deborah Lipstadt.
While some revisionist stress "movement unity" (whatever that means) above all else, there are others who are becoming alarmed (and with good reason) at the personality cult that is developing around some revisionists (to those of you who have said that I am too "hard" on Faurisson, I will remind you that I speak of him with no less severity than I do various "exterminations." I won't go easy on Faurisson just because we happen to hold similar opinions about some things). And while Faurisson is calling for an end to research (note his last conference speech), I wish to ceaselessly prod him (and others) with those things that I believe revisionists have yet to adequately explain (the same way I'll never let up about the things that the "exterminationists" have failed to adequately explain).
As an example, I'll point specifically to Faurisson's response to David Irving's "Journal of Historical Review" essay/conference speech on the Goebbels diary, appearing in the letters section of the current "Journal of Historical Review" (March/April '95). Faurisson quotes from the March 27, 1942 Goebbels diary entry, and then writes "In itself, this last sentence ("Broadly speaking, one can probably say that 60 percent of them will have to be liquidated, while only 40 percent can be put to work" - Goebbels) tends to show that the Reich Minister of Propaganda did not know for sure that there was a German policy to physically exterminate the Jews, either totally or in part."
"IN PART?" What does he think Goebbels is referring to, if not a liquidation IN PART. Faurisson is pulling an old "exterminationist" trick here by quoting a passage and then TELLING us what we've just read, hoping we won't notice any incongruity between the passage and Faurisson's explanation. Faurisson is quoting a passage that speaks of exterminations in part - AT LEAST in part, and then he TELLS us that we in fact HAVEN'T just read what we've read - with no explanation given to clarify why Goebbels isn't actually saying what he so clearly seems to be saying. I think Faurisson has grown too used to having his word taken as gospel. Naked emperors don't only exist on the "exterminationist" side. Faurisson's description of the March 27 Goebbels diary entry reminds me of page 120 of dear old Mel Mermelstein's book, where he shows a picture of Krema 1 and writes in the caption "note the pipes and shower heads above").
The importance (to me of this Goebbels diary passage is that for the first time we have a reliable piece of evidence which points to a plan of separation between those Jews fit for "labor" and the rest, who "have to be liquidated." Hate it though some of us may, this fits the "exterminationist" model much better than it does the revisionist one. If revisionists wish to explain this passage some other way, they'll have to do better than the explanation offered by Faurisson. For myself, I can say that the meaning of this Goebbels diary passage, IN RELATION to events occurring at that time, has yet to be adequately explained by any revisionist.
And Faurisson's explanation of the "Jew transport from Berlin. No liquidation" Himmler note is similarly thin. He neglects to take into account that this entire transport WAS liquidated, in toto. If "no liquidation" meant "no individuals in this transport are scheduled for execution," and if this was the policy (to inform Heydrich of any individuals on each transport who might be scheduled for executions), then why was the entire transport liquidated? It seems to me that a better explanation is that these Jews were being sent to an area where liquidations of Jews were taking place, and for whatever reason (and this is something that the "exterminationists" have yet to explain) Hitler and/or Himmler decided that this transport should be exempted. But it was too late. If Faurisson wishes to support his version, I'd ask him if there are any other notes from Himmler to Heydrich, or records of any conversations between the two men, about individuals in any of these transports who were scheduled for execution upon arrival. In other words, if it was commonplace for Himmler to alert Heydrich of any individuals in these transports who were scheduled to be executed, then there should be records of these orders (i.e. "Jew transport from Berlin. Five liquidations." "Jew transport from Berlin. Twenty liquidations." "Jew transport from Berlin. No liquidations." etc. etc.). I'm not asking rhetorically; I'm genuinely curious.
I'll apologize again for the length of this response...but I wanted to take the time to be specific about my problems with Faurisson, not only because these problems may give you some insight about his current mail/fax campaign against me, but also because I think that the points I've made about Faurisson's scholarship are as relevant now as they've ever been.
Allright [sic], enough already. I've done 16 pages on this Faurisson business, and if you're as sick of reading this as I am of writing it, then I'd better stop right now!
Title: David Cole Responds to Henri Roques and Robert Faurisson
Sources: Supplement to Smith's Report, no. 22, April 1995, p. 2 of the Supplement; http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/c/cole.david/cole-vs-faurisson-struthof
Holocaust Revisionism
Self-Perception
Revisionist Personalities
Cole, David
Faurisson, Robert


Effects of green tea catechin extract on serum lipids in postmenopausal women: a randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial.
BACKGROUND: Green tea has been suggested to improve cardiovascular disease risk factors, including circulating lipid variables. However, current evidence is predominantly based on small, short-term randomized controlled trials conducted in diverse populations.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to examine the efficacy and impact of green tea extract (GTE) supplementation high in epigallocatechin gallate (EGCG) on blood lipids in healthy postmenopausal women.
DESIGN: This was an ancillary study of a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, parallel-arm trial investigating the effects of a GTE supplement containing 1315 mg catechins (843 mg EGCG) on biomarkers of breast cancer risk. Participants were randomly assigned to receive GTE (n = 538) or placebo (n = 537) and were stratified by catechol-O-methyltransferase (COMT) genotype activity (high COMT compared with low or intermediate COMT genotype activity). They consumed either 4 GTE or identical placebo capsules daily for 12 mo. A total of 936 women completed this substudy. Circulating lipid panels including total cholesterol (TC), HDL cholesterol, and triglycerides were measured at baseline and at months 6 and 12.
RESULTS: Compared with placebo, 1-y supplementation with GTE capsules resulted in a significant reduction in circulating TC (-2.1% compared with 0.7%; P = 0.0004), LDL cholesterol (-4.1% compared with 0.9%; P<0.0001) and non-HDL cholesterol (-3.1% compared with 0.4%; P = 0.0032). There was no change in HDL-cholesterol concentration, but triglyceride concentrations increased by 3.6% in the GTE group, whereas they decreased by 2.5% in the placebo group (P = 0.046). A significant reduction in TC was observed only among women with high (i.e.,≥200 mg/dL) baseline TC concentrations (P-interaction = 0.01) who consumed GTE capsules. The effect of GTE on the increase in triglycerides was mainly observed among obese women and statin users (P-interaction = 0.06).
CONCLUSION: Supplementation with GTE significantly reduced circulating TC and LDL-cholesterol concentrations, especially in those with elevated baseline TC concentrations. This trial was registered at clinicaltrials.gov as NCT00917735.


East Neuk Campervans are located at Anstruther in Fife and have been offering customers the very best quality high top camper conversions for over 19 years.
We are a father and son run company and aim to provide only the best in the way of service, design and overall product.
Our workshop is located on the outskirts of Anstruther and we welcome you to come and visit us at our workshop and retail premises to see what we do best. One of five villages dotted along Scotland's east coastline, Anstruther is in the heart of the East Neuk of Fife on the A917 from Elie to Crail and only a 10 minute drive from St Andrews.


text:
How to Negotiate Mutually Beneficial Noncompete Agreements
How to achieve a win-win result with noncompete agreements
By Katie Shonk — on November 11th, 2021 / Win-Win Negotiations
If you're looking to get more leverage out of your next job negotiation, noncompete agreements that may very well be tucked inside your employment contract could provide an opportunity to achieve the mutually beneficial win-win situation you desire.
Claim your FREE copy: Win-Win or Hardball
Discover how to handle complicated, high-level business negotiations in this free report, Win-Win or Hardball: Learn Top Strategies from Sports Contract Negotiations, from Harvard Law School.
Negotiating a Contract: Negotiation Tactics for Handling Noncompete Agreements
Previously limited to the domain of corporate trade secrets, noncompete agreements as having cropped up in a wide array of fields in recent years, from hairstyling to sales to yoga instruction.
One summer camp even included a noncompete clause in its teenage counselors' summer employment contract, reports Steven Greenhouse in a New York Times article on the growing prevalence of noncompete agreements. Counselors at the Linx-branded camp in Wellesley, Mass. who signed the contract were barred from working at a competing camp within 10 miles.
Employers that have staff sign noncompete agreements are motivated by the desire to limit turnover and protect proprietary information such as client lists. After devoting significant resources to training new workers, organizations are loath to see them take their new skills, knowledge, and experience to their competitors.
But some argue that noncompete agreements stifle innovation and economic development. Entrepreneurs may delay or abandon plans to start a new, potentially job-creating start-up, for example, because they are bound by a current or past employer's noncompete.
A hairstylist named Daniel McKinnon told the Times that after being fired by the salon where he had worked for years, he took a job at a competing salon. A judge filed an injunction ordering him to leave his new job after finding that McKinnon had violated the terms of his previous company's noncompete agreement. "I basically had to give up a year of working," he said.
California and North Dakota have outlawed noncompetes in their states. That may be why a group of Silicon Valley high-tech firms, including Apple, Google, Intel, and Adobe, allegedly agreed to a secret, informal pact not to hire from one another. (As we described in the July 2014 issue of the Negotiation Briefings newsletter, these four companies settled a lawsuit filed by disgruntled employees who said they lost out on job opportunities and higher wages because of the pact.)
If your employer asks you to sign a noncompete agreement, how should you respond to achieve a win-win deal and reach a successful agreement. Begin by consulting with an employment attorney in your area, who can help you determine whether the agreement is lawful and fair. If any red flags arise, such as vague language or onerous restrictions, bring them to your employer's attention.
If you are reluctant to sign a noncompete agreement altogether, explain your concerns and ask for more detail about the company's reasons for asking you to sign. This information might lead you and the employer to a less restrictive agreement. A company that is primarily concerned about protecting trade secrets might be willing to have you sign a nondisclosure clause instead, employment attorney Mark J. Girouard told Forbes.com. Or if a company is concerned you'll poach its clients down the road, you might simply sign a nonsolicitation agreement.
Through this type of research and negotiation, you may end up with a contract that better balances your interests with those of your future employer—a win-win deal for all.
What has been your experience with noncompete agreements? Share your story in the comments below.
Originally published in 2014.
Tags: Business Negotiations, Conflict Resolution, contract negotiation, contract negotiation strategies, contract negotiation tactics, dealmaking, dispute resolution, mutually beneficial, negotiating about pandas for san diego zoo, negotiation, negotiation strategies, negotiation tactics, win win situation

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
The Living Art Museum (Nýló) is a not-for-profit, artist-run museum and exhibition platform for innovative and experimental contemporary art in Reykjavík, Iceland. The Living Art Museum is committed to presenting, collecting and preserving works by Icelandic and international artists and in engaging with the discourse on contemporary art practices.

History
Nýló was founded by a group of twenty-six artists in 1978 as the first artist-run, non-profit organisation in Iceland. It began initially as a collection to preserve and archive artworks by a younger generation of artists that were otherwise ignored by the art public and authorities at the time; the founders were a diverse group of artists at various stages within their careers, and mainly associated with the fluxus movement and conceptual art. January 5, 1978 marks the inaugural meeting where the Living Art Museum Association was established and the initial foundations for its roll were set in place. Since that founding year Nýló has maintained the original goal to create a platform for progressive exhibitions and critical discussions on experimental art practices, but has also remained inherently flexible as necessary within smaller, mainly volunteer-based organisations. Equal weight has been given to exhibiting and collecting works by both Icelandic and international artists.

On January 5, 2008 Nýló celebrated the 30th anniversary of its founding, marked by the publication of Nýlistasafnið / The Living Art Museum: 1978-2008.

In 1981 the Living Art Museum Gallery was founded and Nýló became a venue for exhibiting art along with collecting. This new role took some prominence over collecting and helped to make Nẏlȯ a foremost venue for performance during the 1980s. Originally the collection began in a 30 m2, rented space at Mjölnisholt 14, Reykjavík. Nýló then occupied a 200 m2 ground floor space in an alley at Vatnsstígur 3b, where another storey was added in October 1983. In 1989 Islandsbanki purchased the building and terminated the lease, forcing Nýló to move the museum's holdings in a rented storage space at Þingholtsstræti 6. A year later Vatnsstígur 3b was purchased and Nýló occupied 560 m2 there until 2001. Between 2001 and 2004 the organisation had a brief stay at Vatnsstígur 3 and in 2006 moved to Laugavegur 26.

In early June 2014 the museum moved with its collection, archives and research facilities to Völvufell 13-21 in Breiðholt, a suburb of Reykjavík. For nearly three years Nýló had a temporary gallery space on the top floor of this location, in a former bakery.

In early 2017, the Living Art Museum moved to the second floor of The Marshallhouse, downtown Harbor area in Reykjavík. The house was a former herring factory and has been renovated by Architects Kurt og Pí. Nýló shares the building with Kling & Bang, artist-run gallery and Studio Ólafur Elíasson.

Focus

Nýló focuses on contemporary art, with the aim of providing a base for artistic creativity and experimentation in the visual arts. Along with producing 6 to 8 exhibitions in the gallery space each year, Nýló also promotes artistic expressions in various forms such as performance, screenings, school visits and workshops to increase program variability. In this way, the museum promotes a critical approach to visual art, while opting to question and reflect on its own current direction and activities at all times. The Living Art Museum does not represent individual artists, but throughout the years has been indisputably important to promoting artists within a nurturing, supportive and non-hierarchical relationship. Nýló is a small institution with an inherent flexibility, which allows the museum to constantly reconsider and revise existing ideas and experiment with new solutions, while attempting to find ideal circumstances for the artists working within it.

The board
Nýló is managed by a board of five members and a secondary board of three members, who are voted in on a yearly basis. Each member can serve for up to two years and with work done mainly on a voluntary basis. Nýló evolves under the influence and characteristics of each successive board and therefore maintains a fluid relationship with developing concerns in the field of visual arts. The range in perspective on contemporary culture offered through the individuals serving on the board at any given time ensures Nýló maintains a role in these discourses, keeping the museum's engagements challenging and current.

The collection
Nýló's collection consists of approximately 2,300 artworks from 1950 to the present. The collection has been acquired through donations by artists who have exhibited or members that have been included as part of the history of the museum. Originally artists and members were required to contribute two works upon becoming a member with an annual donation following that, which means that over the past 35 years the museum has acquired a diverse collection of works by artists from abroad and within Iceland. This requirement ensured the growth of the collection, but has also highlighted questions and/or issues related to the role of a collection, storage and space requirements, along with archival and preservation practices.
Nýló holds a considerable collection of artist books and prints, as well as documents that speak to the context and history of the works in the collection.
Icelandic artists such as Kristján Guðmundsson, Róska, Sigurður Guðmundsson, Hildur Hákonardóttir, Ásta Ólafsdóttir, Birgir Andrésson, Brynhilður Þorgeirsdóttir, Egill Sæbjörnsson, Finnbogi Pétursson, Rúrí, Ólafur Lárusson, Rúna Þorkelsdóttir, Tumi Magnússon, Ragna Hermannsdóttir, Hreinn Friðfinnsson, Ragnar Kjartansson, Magnús Pálsson, Hulda Vilhjálmsdóttir, The Icelandic Love Corporation, Finnbogi Pétursson, and Helgi Þorgils Friðjónsson are included, along with works by international artists such as Dieter Roth, Carsten Höller, Dorothy Iannone, Douwe Jan Bakker, John Cage, Franz Graf, John Armleder, Joseph Beuys, Matthew Barney, Meredith Monk, Richard Hamilton and Robert Filiou.

Nýló's collection can be accessed online at Sarpur, the collection database.

Archives
The archive at Nýló is a diverse collection of papers and documents connected to the museum and exhibition history, that was not a planned process, but rather arose out of the necessity to do so. Consisting of catalogues, audio and video files, letters, photographs, films, and recorded meeting notes among other things, the archive is continuously growing and being filled in. With accessible information about the artists, exhibitions, and other events occurring in relation to the museum, it serves as a source for research and a timeline of the organisation's history.

As part of the 2008 anniversary program Nýló began a set of parallel initiatives for the organization and archiving of documents from the history of artist-run spaces and artist performance in Iceland. This ongoing Performance Archive and Archive of Artist-run Initiatives project is in creative collaboration with the Reykjavik City Archive, the Icelandic Art Academy, the National Broadcasting Service of Iceland, and The Film Museum of Iceland, with an aim to make the history of local artist initiatives accessible for future research and preservation. This initiative is an important effort in connecting Nýló and the history of contemporary art in Iceland with alternative ideas, concepts, theories, and perspectives on cultural history.

Archive of artist-run initiatives
A large part of the Nýló archive is built upon documentation of independent, artist-run spaces in Iceland. A variety of artist-run spaces have originated and been operated in Iceland over the last 35 years; all around the country, and in mobile and static forms. The common ground for these independent spaces has been in their role as a platform for progressive, experimental art, exhibitions of international artists and interactions between different groups in society and the art community. The abundance and productivity of artist-run spaces in Iceland has received international attention and these organisations have been considered very dynamic and influential.

The reasons as to why artists decide to create their own platforms for engagement may be rooted in a need for processes of creative collaboration; many seeing these initiative as a part of their individual practice, along with an alternative outlet for expression. These types of organisations also arise out of a need for self-organisation where there may be a lack of infrastructure and specialization in specific fields of art, which provides the possibility of open space for new approaches. As an artist-run organisation, Nýló is not an exception in this case and is ambitious to embrace the history of local artist-run initiatives, while continuing to collect documentation on current and future spaces.

Performance archive
The archiving of performance work documentation began at the beginning of 2008 and is currently still active. The results of this process were presented at Nýló as a contribution to the Reykjavik Art Festival. For this occasion an informative booklet, with texts and images of the projects was printed. The Nýló performance archive initially included documentation of 20 performance works from the period 1978-1981. Recently the documentation of 46 performances have been added to the collection. The process and collection has been made in close relation to the artists in question, and those who have used performance extensively in their art practice. Many local artists work with performance as a medium, but for only a few it is a center medium. The aim of this project is to preserve performance documentation and performance-related works, and to establish Nýló as a central museum for performance in Iceland.

Publications
NÝLISTASAFNIÐ / The Living Art Museum: 1978-2008 - The museum has collaborated on and published numerous catalogues on artists and exhibitions, including an extensive retrospective publication on the history of Nýló in Icelandic and English titled, NÝLISTASAFNIÐ / The Living Art Museum: 1978-2008, edited by Tinna Guðmundsdóttir. The publication was produced on the occasion of the 30th anniversary of the museum,  January 5, 2008, and celebrates Nýló's exhibitions, accomplishments and transformations over time. The purpose behind the publication was to create a holistic journal and source of historical information by way of making the archives and documents accessible to interested parties. This overview contains all basic information concerning the goings-on within the museum from the day of its foundation -  as a political art venue, a venue for contemporary art and as a place where works are collected and preserved. The layout, designed by Ármann Agnarsson, aims to make this information interesting and accessible, while providing a foundation of the history of the Living Art Museum.

Archive on the Run - In 2009 Nýló initiated the Uppspretta project, which later produced the publication Archive on the Run. Uppspretta was intended to examine the museum's operations, providing insight into shaping the future vision following the intense process of registering and evaluating the museum's collection and possibilities, also centered on the 30th anniversary in 2008. The process included work meetings where artists, curators and individuals with ties to the museum, based locally and in the Nordic countries, discussed their thoughts and interpretations relating to Nýló. The result was a discussion in four parts hosted by the Iceland Academy of the Arts, which focused on the possibilities of museums and exhibition venues using Nýló as a focal point. "Archive on the Run" is intended to be a critical platform from which the future of Nýló is reconsidered, discussed and analyzed on different grounds, stemming from its context and history.

The publication contains various ideas based on the following discussion subjects: The Challenges of the Gift Based Collection, The Tension between the Collection and the Exhibition Venue, Cultural authority and alternatives to stagnation, and The Association and the community. Contributing writers include Amy Howden-Chapman, Bjarki Bragason, Bergsveinn Þórsson, Birta Guðjónsdóttir, Elena Tzotzi, Gunndís Ýr Finnbogadóttir, Maja Bekan, Gunnhildur Hauksdóttir, Huginn Þór Arason, Ingunn Fjóla Ingþórsdóttir, Katrín Inga Jónsdóttir Hjördísardóttir , Kristín Ómarsdóttir, Oddný Eir Ævarsdóttir, and Unnar Örn. The publication is edited by Ármann Agnarsson, Gunnhildur Hauksdóttir, Gunndís Ýr Finnbogadóttir and Unnar Örn Auðarsson.

S7 – Suðurgata >> Árbær (not in service) is a publication based on the cross-disciplinary artist initiative Gallery Suðurgata 7, which ran between 1977-1982. The gallery was organised by young artists who at the time hosted a variety of cultural events including exhibitions, film screenings, concerts and performances, as well as instigating a platform for critical dialogue with the publication and art magazine, Svart á hvítu or Black on White in English. The project brings together two different institutions, the artist-run Living Art Museum and Reykjavik City Museum. The Living Art Museum holds original documents about the gallery in its Archive of Artist-run Initiatives, while Reykjavík City Museum has preserved the building since 1983, when it was relocated after the gallery operation ended. The book was published in collaboration between the Living Art Museum and The Reykjavík City Museum on the occasion of the exhibition S7 – Suðurgata >> Árbær (not in service), which was part of the Reykjavik Arts Festival 2014, and edited by Bergsveinn Þórisson, Gunnhildur Hauksdóttir, Heiðar Kári Rannversson & Unnar Örn Auðarsson.

Án titils / Untitled follows the exhibition Rolling Line, the opening exhibition of the Living Art Museum in the Marshall House, 18 March – 11 June. The publication includes a large selection of archive material from Ólafur's studio, acquired by the museum last year as a gift on behalf of the artist by his family.
The book also includes an introductory text by Halldór Björn Runólfsson, and interviews with Ólafur's friends and contemporaries, including Hreinn Friðfinnsson, Hildur Hákonardóttir, Kees Visser, Kristján Guðmundsson, Magnús Pálsson, Níels Hafstein, founder and director of The Icelandic Folk and Outsider Art Museum, Rúrí, Sigurður Guðmundsson and Þór Vigfússon. The artist's own voice also comes through in fragments of interviews taken with Ólafur and is closely connected to a chronology following the life of the artist. This is the first time that a book is published on Ólafur Lárusson's work.

Collaborators
The Museum has collaborated closely with various institutions on different projects and initiatives. On publications Nýló has collaborated with Mál og Menning Publications, Útúrdúr Publications, and Skaftfell - Center for Visual Art. Over the years collaboration with a large number of art organizations (e.g. British Council, Mondriaan Foundation, Nifca, IASPIS, former DCA) have taken place, as well as with numerous museums and galleries. Nýló is supported and funded by the members of the Living Art Museum, The Ministry of Education, Science and Culture and Reykjavik City Council. The National Museum of Art, The Reykjavík Art Museum, The Icelandic Academy of the Arts, the Reykjavík Municipal Archives, and The National Broadcasting Service (RÚV) have also collaborated on various projects. The Living Art Museum is a member of the Sequences Art festival and the Reykjavík Art Festival.

See also
 Franklin Furnace Archive
 Sequences Art Festival
 Storefront for Art and Architecture

References

Contemporary art galleries in Europe
Art museums and galleries in Iceland
Icelandic culture
Art museums established in 1978
1978 establishments in Iceland

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


text:
Q: How to use powerbi-client dependency in Angular application, without breaking jest tests? My goal is to use powerbi-client in my Angular 9 application. My POC component works great, using the library like this:
import * as pbi from 'powerbi-client'; // It's installad in package.json

However, when I run my unit tests with jest, I get this error:
TypeError: Cannot read property 'getRandomValues' of undefined

It looks like this:

Any help is very welcome ♂
I tried adding the library under the script section of angular.json, but this did not help:
"scripts": [
    "./node_modules/powerbi-client/dist/powerbi.min.js"
],

A: Similar to alex bennett's answer but global.self could not be referenced in my versions of jest/typescript/node. I'm using:

*

*jest version 24.9.0 (@types/jest v24.0.23) with jest-preset-angular v8.2.1, ts-jest v24.2.0.

*typescript 3.7.5 (ts-node v8.10.2)

*@types/node version 14.0.24

*powerbi-client: 2.11.0

So I modified setupJest.ts in the root of my Angular 9 application to the following:
const crypto = require('crypto')
declare var window: Window & typeof globalThis;

Object.defineProperty(window.self, 'crypto', {
  value: {
    getRandomValues: (arr) => crypto.randomBytes(arr.length)
  }
});

The declaration of window is a line-for-line copy of how powerbi-client declares it(in node_modules/powerbi-client/dist/powerbi.js - search for getRandomValues and then follow the reference to window).
The problem seems to stem from jsDom not implementing all methods from window. As per: Jest's Documentation

A: I experienced this today as well. In your setupTests file, or any other place Jest let's you do set up test configuration, add the following:
const crypto = require('crypto')

Object.defineProperty(global.self, 'crypto', {
  value: {
    getRandomValues: arr => crypto.randomBytes(arr.length)
  }
})

You may even be able to add this to your test file but not sure how your project is configured. Hope this helps. (Since you're using .ts and angular, you may also have to hack your way around some types for this).

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


text:
General S. Cyril Ranatunga, VSV (19 February 1930 – 16 June 2021) was a Sri Lanka Army officer. He served as Secretary of Defence, General Officer Commanding, Joint Operations Command and Chief of Staff of the Sri Lanka Army during the 1980s. He was also the Sri Lankan High Commissioner to Australia and High Commissioner to the United Kingdom.

Early life
Born and raised in the village of Bakmeedeniya, Kegalle, in a family of six children, Ranatunga attended St. Sylvester's College, Kandy; where he excelled at many sports, captained hockey and athletic teams. He was the head prefect and won the Gold Medal for the best all round student in 1949.

Military career
He joined the Ceylon Army in 1950 and received his officer training at Royal Military Academy Sandhurst, where his company commander was Patrick Anthony Porteous. After completing his training at Sandhurst, he was sent to Malaya for additional training at the British Army Jungle Warfare School. On his return he was commissioned as a Second Lieutenant in the Ceylon Light Infantry. Later he was transferred to the 1st Reconnaissance (Recce) Regiment at its formation as the 1st Reconnaissance Squadron in 1955 which grew into the Ceylon Armoured Corps. His squadron was deployed in 1956 to Ampara to subdue the Gal Oya riots and thereafter to Trincomalee to control civil unrest. He underwent training at British Army Armoured Center, Bovington in 1957 as the regimental signals officer of the 1 Recce Regiment. In 1958, he served as a military observer in Lebanon United Nations Observation Group during the Lebanon crisis, rejoining his regiment on his return to Ceylon.

In 1962, he attended the Staff College, Camberley, where he became friends with Major Yakubu Gowon, later General and Head of the Federal Military Government of Nigeria. On his return he was appointed second-in-command of the 1 Recce Regiment. He was thereafter transferred to Army Headquarters as the general staff officer - operations before returning to the 1st Recce Regiment as its commanding officer.

Insurrection
He was a Lieutenant Colonel and commanding officer of the 1st Recce Regiment when the 1971 Insurrection started and he was appointed the Military Coordinating Officer of the Kegalle District by the Prime Minister, where he effectively subdued the insurgency in the district which had been overrun by insurgents. He was deployed with the 1st Reconnaissance Regiment and a company of the Ceylon Light Infantry. Following the clearing of insurgents from Kegalle, he was appointed Military Coordinating Officer of the Anuradhapura District to lead mop-up operations. He was instrumental in the establishment of the Anuradhapura Army Base as a permanent military complex.

Higher command
He was nominated to attend the Royal College of Defence Studies in 1973. On his return he was appointed Commander, Northern Command in Anuradhapura and thereafter Commander, South East Command at the Diyatalawa Garrison in February 1975 and in March 1976 he was appointed Commandant of the Army Training Centre. In January 1977, he was appointed Military Secretary and in January 1978 he was appointed Commander, Western Command at the Panagoda Cantonment. On 4 February 1978 he was confirmed to the rank of Brigadier. In January 1980, he was appointed Commander, Support Forces in addition to serving as Commander, Western Command. In this capacity he was instrumental in forming the Army Provident Fund. In February 1982, he was appointed Chief of Staff of the Sri Lanka Army and Commander Security Forces Headquarters – Jaffna. During his tenure he was based at Gurunagar, containing the expansion of the Tamil militancy. To this end he developed military intelligence in Jaffna. In 1983, he retired from the army.

Airport and Aviation
He was appointed an executive director of the Airport and Aviation Services, Sri Lanka and later appointed Chairman of Airport and Aviation Services. In this capacity he oversaw the expansion of the Katunayake International Airport.

Joint Operations Command
He was recalled from retirement in 5 September 1985 and promoted to the rank of Lieutenant General, to serve as the General Officer Commanding, Joint Operations Command (JOC) which had been formed early that year under the command of General Tissa Weeratunga. During this time JOC undertook planning of combined operations, procurement and expansion of the armed forces. Sri Lanka faced restrictions for weapon imports from the west as the case of the US government approving the sale of Cadillac Gage armored cars without turrets and guns; as well as the British government's refusal to supply spare parts for the Alvis Saladins and Ferret armoured cars. As a result the JOC received support from China and Pakistan. Chinese Type 56 assault rifles replaced self loading rifles as the primary service weapon and Chinese armored vehicles were imported. Israeli Dvora-class fast patrol boat was added to the navy and became its workhorse. His tenure as GOC-JOC saw large scale offensives against the LTTE such as the Vadamarachchi Operation which came close to meeting its objective when it was abandoned due to Indian intervention when military cargo planes escorted by fighter aircraft dropped humanitarian relief supplies in the Jaffna area on June 4 in Operation Poomalai. Indian forces landed in Sri Lanka on July 29 with the signing of the Indo-Sri-Lankan accord.

General Ranatunga was of the opinion that the Indo Lanka Peace Accord was forced down Sri Lanka's throat at a time when the then President, J.R. Jayewardene wanted no such thing. While the ongoing military operation at the time had to be called off due to the Accord, Gen. Ranatunga was confident that, had the operation continued, LTTE Leader Velupillai Prabhakaran would have been captured and the LTTE defeated. In 1 August 1986, he was promoted to full general and was retired from active service in 1988 once again, stepping down as GOC, Joint Operations Command and was promoted to the rank of General. Ranatunga had stated that President Jayewardene had proposed to promote him to the rank of Field marshal.

Later work

Ministry of Defence
Following retirement, General Ranatunga served as Chairman of Airport and Aviation Services. In February 1990, President Ranasinghe Premadasa appointed him as Secretary to the Ministry of Defence. As Defence Secretary, he managed the budgetary allocations and administration of the Ministry of Defence and the Armed Forces. He stepped down as Defence Secretary in April 1993. He had been appointed the first Chancellor of the General Sir John Kotelawala Defence Academy in 1990 and held the post till 1995.

High Commissioner
In April 1993, he was appointed by President Premadasa as Sri Lankan High Commissioner to Australia, which he took up on 1 May 1993, the day President Premadasa was assassinated at a May Day rally in Colombo. As High Commissioner Ranatunga began a project to relocate the Sri Lanka High Commission in Canberra to a new building having purchased land for it. However, four months into his tenure, Premadasa's successor Wijetunga appointed him as Sri Lankan High Commissioner to the United Kingdom. He took up the appointment in October 1993. He served in London for a year and a half until he was recalled by the newly elected President Kumaratunga.

Leaving public life, he lived the remainder of his days at his ancestral home in Mawanella having become a gentleman farmer. He died on 16 June 2021, and per his family's wishes a private funeral took place at Borella General Cemetery on the following day.

Family
On his way to the British Army Armoured Center in Bovington on board P&O liner Orontes, he met Myrtle Sumanasekera, they were engaged on their arrival in London and married soon after. They have two sons. His elder brother who also joined the army retired as a colonel.

Decorations
General Ranatunga has received the Vishista Seva Vibhushanaya, Ceylon Armed Services Long Service Medal, Republic of Sri Lanka Armed Services Medal and the Vadamarachchi Operation Medal. He has received the United Nations Medal for the United Nations Observation Group in Lebanon.

References

1930 births
2021 deaths
Sri Lankan full generals
Sinhalese military personnel
Sri Lankan diplomats
Graduates of the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst
Graduates of the Staff College, Camberley
Graduates of the Royal College of Defence Studies
High Commissioners of Sri Lanka to the United Kingdom
High Commissioners of Sri Lanka to Australia
Alumni of St. Sylvester's College
Sri Lanka Armoured Corps officers
People from Kegalle District
Indian Peace Keeping Force


Sponge: Pour the water into a heavy mixer bowl. Sprinkle the yeast over thw water. Stir with a whisk or whisk attachment until dissolved. Add the milk powder, sour cream, rye and pumpernickel flours and molasses. Beat until smooth and thick. Cover loosely with plastic wrap and let stand at room temperature until double in bulk, about 1 hour.
Dough: Add the melted butter, salt, gluten, caraway seeds, and 2 cup of the bread flour to the sponge. Beat for 2 minutes on medium speed with paddle attachment. Add the remaining bread flour, 1/2 cup at a time, mixing on low speed until a sticky dough that just clears the sides of the bowl forms.
Mix with the dough hook for about 2 minutes until moist and tacky adding flour 1 tablespoon at a time to prevent sticking. Place in lightly greased container and cover with plastic wrap. Let rise at room temperature until double, 1 1/2 - 2 hours.
Line two baking sheets with parchment paper. Divide dough into 4 equal portions. Knead lightly into rounds. Dust light with rye flour and place, smooth side up, on the baking sheets. Let rise, uncovered, until soft and springly, about 1 hour.
Preheat the oven before baking to 350F and place rack in the middle of the oven....about 20 minutes before ready to bake.
Using a razor blade, make 4 parallel slashes no more than 1/4 inch deep in the top of each loaf. Or make 2 slashes to form an X. Bake 50-55 minutes, or until golden brown and crusty. Remove from the sheets to cool on a rack.