Archive for the ‘Holocaust Revisionism’ Category

Holocaust Denial – My Jewish Learning

Understanding the arguments of so-called revisionists. By Bradford R. Pilcher

How do we know the number of Jews killed in the Holocaust is six million, as opposed to six hundred thousand? What evidence exists that murdering of Jews was official Nazi policy and not the acts of rogue individuals? How do we know that gas chambers were used for mass murder?

Most people would never think to ask these questions. In popular history, it is taken as a given that six million Jews perished at the hands of the Nazi regime.

Nevertheless, Holocaust deniers question these facts. Some even go so far as to claim that a genocide against the Jewish people never took place, that any deaths of Jewish Europeans during World War II was the result of natural events in wartime. The president of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, for example has made this exact argument repeatedly. Deniers argue that claims to the contrary are part of a historical lie perpetrated by Jewish leaders, political figures, and historians.

One of the most frequent challenges posed by the Holocaust deniers is calling into question the “6 million” figure. Various deniers claim the actual number is only a million or a few hundred thousand.

Holocaust denial proponents point to the World Almanac for proof. The 1940 edition listed the worlds Jewish population at 15,319,359. By the 1949 edition, deniers assert, that figure is listed as 15,713,638. How could six million, over one-third of all Jews in the world, be murdered and the population increase?

Historians immediately point out that the 1949 World Almanac does not list that figure for the world Jewish population. Instead, the increased number was taken from an erroneous Senate Judiciary Committee report in 1950. Anybody looking in the 1949 World Almanac would instead see the figure of 11,266,600, along with a revision of the 1939 population upwards to more than 16-and-a-half million.

Another argument stems from the change to a commemorative plaque at Auschwitz. Until 1994, the plaque read “Four million people suffered and died here at the hands of the Nazi murderers between the years 1940 and 1945.” In 1991, that plaque was replaced with a new one that listed only one and a half million victims, “a majority of them Jews.” Deniers quickly pointed to the revision as proof that the numbers were inflated.

Bradley Smith, a prominent denier who gained notoriety by sending ads to college newspapers questioning facts about the Holocaust, sent out an ad in 1992:

The Auschwitz State Museum has recently revised its half-century-old claim that 4 million humans were murdered there. The Museum now says maybe it was 1 million. But what proof does the Museum provide to document the 1 million figure? None! The communist propagandists who manage the museum have put on display piles of hair, boots and eyeglasses, etc. While such displays are effective propaganda devices, they are worthless as historical documentation for gassings or a program of extermination.”

“Meanwhile, Revisionists want to know where those 3 million souls have been the last 45 years. Were they part of the fabled Six Million?”

In fact, the actual numbers were inflated, but not by Jewish historians trying to guilt the world into compensation. The Soviets overstated the number of non-Jewish victims for propaganda purposes. A noted historian, Raul Hillberg, estimated just over a million deaths at Auschwitz. He did that in 1950, and estimates by historians such as him have been always been the scholarly basis for determining the number of victims.

Debating whether the figure of six million is inflated is just tip of the iceberg. Other denial arguments center on the use of gas chambers in Nazi concentration camps. Still others question the role of top Nazi officials, pointing out that no document exists with Hitlers signature that instructs, “Kill all the Jews.”

Additionally, there are other minor details of the Holocaust that come up for questioning. The piles of hair, boots, and other gleanings from the victims of concentration camps are often criticized. Some cite this as a propaganda creation rather than actual Nazi collections. Others have criticized the Anne Franks diary, contending it was a post-war forgery

Like the above theories, all Holocaust denial, reflects a specific approach. The primary goal is usually to undermine a specific claim by ignoring the whole body of historical evidence and instead targeting a single, sometimes obscure, fact. This is perhaps the defining tactic of Holocaust denial.

Deniers will pull a reference from the historical record and present it as impossible. These statements often sound legitimate and serve a dual purpose to the average listener. Doubt is cast upon the specific claim, and the onus is placed back on those who claim the Holocaust happened. If they can raise enough doubts about enough claims, deniers believe they can undermine the entire Holocaust narrative by eroding public certainty.

Take for example the use of Zyklon-B in concentration camp gas chambers. The Institute for Historical Review, a denial organization, refers to a confession from Rudolf Hoss, the Nazi commandant at Auschwitz: “Hoss said in his confession that his men would smoke cigarettes as they pulled the dead Jews out of the gas chambers ten minutes after gassing. Isnt Zyklon-B explosive? Highly so. The Hoss confession is obviously false.”

Sounds plausible? Zyklon-B is explosiveso how does one account for the discrepancy here? To answer that, one needs to understand the minimal concentrations necessary for a gas to explode and terms such as “parts per million,” or point to the ventilation systems Nazis themselves installed in the gas chambers. By this point, however, deniers have reached their goal of planting doubt within their audience

Its this approach, rather than extreme claims about Jewish conspiracies, that can find an audience even among fair minded individuals. Dr. Robert Faurisson, a former French academic, made his name in the denial community first by focusing on the “problem of the gas chambers.” He later would argue that the Holocaust is a “Zionist lie” and a “huge financial swindle of which the state of Israel is the principal beneficiary.” This reflects a common sentiment among deniers, that the Holocaust has been, at the very least, exaggerated in order to benefit Jews and Israel financially. Nevertheless, denial arguments dont usually start with that conclusion. They end there.

A more immediate question arises when looking at the efforts of Holocaust deniers against a mountain of testimonials, documents, and historical research. The Nizkor Project, an anti-denial group based out of Canada, puts simply puts it: “Given the evidence why do people deny the Holocaust?”

Today, denial has largely been relegated to fringe hate groups, neo-Nazis, and blatant anti-Semites. So for the answer, its worth looking at what such groups themselves say on the subject. The Nizkor Project has an entire section of its website devoted to the statements of the National Socialist White Peoples Party on denial. Their leader, Harold Covington, is quoted from a 1996 bulletin paraphrasing leading critic of Holocaust denial Deborah Lipstadt:

“The real purpose of Holocaust revisionism is to make National Socialism an acceptable political alternative again,” Covington summarizes. Then he adds, “I normally dont agree with anything a Jew says, but I recall exclaiming, Bingo! Got it in one! Give that lady a cigar!”

Covington is quoted elsewhere as saying, “Take away the Holocaust and what do you have left? Without their precious Holocaust, what are the Jews? Just a grubby little bunch of international bandits and assassins and squatters who have perpetrated the most massive, cynical fraud in human history.”

Many see Holocaust denial as an anti-Semitic attempt to legitimize white power and hate group ideology. Though some deniers have attempted to minimize this reality and cloak their efforts in scholarship, their own statements reveal their primary motivations.

Still in the years just after the Holocaust, denial was less a blatantly anti-Semitic movement and more the outgrowth of extreme libertarianism, anti-war thinkers, and perpetrators themselves attempting to avoid blame.

The father of the denial movement was Harry Elmer Barnes. Hardly a raving anti-Semite, he was once a respected historian. He was an anti-war writer in the years prior to World War II, and after the war based his criticism of U.S. involvement on libertarian principles. It was these positions that led Barnes to write off the Holocaust as a piece of Allied propagandasomething most other libertarians rejected even while embracing his other writings.

However clear the historical record may be, it remains forever vulnerable to popular ignorance and apathy. The tactic of deniers is to pose questions, raise doubts, and ignore historical evidence. While informed people might call Holocaust denial ridiculous, their clear strategy and goals are far from that.

Did you like this article? MyJewishLearning is a not-for-profit organization.

Please consider making a donation today.

Bradford R. Pilcher is the Managing Editor of American Jewish Life magazine. His writing has appeared in venues such as Wired News, PopMatters, Jewsweek, and he has served as an advisor to the National Museum of American Jewish History.

How do we know the number of Jews killed in the Holocaust is six million, as opposed to six hundred thousand? What evidence exists that murdering of Jews was official Nazi policy and not the acts of rogue individuals? How do we know that gas chambers were used for mass murder?

Most people would never think to ask these questions. In popular history, it is taken as a given that six million Jews perished at the hands of the Nazi regime.

Nevertheless, Holocaust deniers question these facts. Some even go so far as to claim that a genocide against the Jewish people never took place, that any deaths of Jewish Europeans during World War II was the result of natural events in wartime. The president of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, for example has made this exact argument repeatedly. Deniers argue that claims to the contrary are part of a historical lie perpetrated by Jewish leaders, political figures, and historians.

One of the most frequent challenges posed by the Holocaust deniers is calling into question the “6 million” figure. Various deniers claim the actual number is only a million or a few hundred thousand.

Holocaust denial proponents point to the World Almanac for proof. The 1940 edition listed the worlds Jewish population at 15,319,359. By the 1949 edition, deniers assert, that figure is listed as 15,713,638. How could six million, over one-third of all Jews in the world, be murdered and the population increase?

Historians immediately point out that the 1949 World Almanac does not list that figure for the world Jewish population. Instead, the increased number was taken from an erroneous Senate Judiciary Committee report in 1950. Anybody looking in the 1949 World Almanac would instead see the figure of 11,266,600, along with a revision of the 1939 population upwards to more than 16-and-a-half million.

Another argument stems from the change to a commemorative plaque at Auschwitz. Until 1994, the plaque read “Four million people suffered and died here at the hands of the Nazi murderers between the years 1940 and 1945.” In 1991, that plaque was replaced with a new one that listed only one and a half million victims, “a majority of them Jews.” Deniers quickly pointed to the revision as proof that the numbers were inflated.

Bradley Smith, a prominent denier who gained notoriety by sending ads to college newspapers questioning facts about the Holocaust, sent out an ad in 1992:

The Auschwitz State Museum has recently revised its half-century-old claim that 4 million humans were murdered there. The Museum now says maybe it was 1 million. But what proof does the Museum provide to document the 1 million figure? None! The communist propagandists who manage the museum have put on display piles of hair, boots and eyeglasses, etc. While such displays are effective propaganda devices, they are worthless as historical documentation for gassings or a program of extermination.”

“Meanwhile, Revisionists want to know where those 3 million souls have been the last 45 years. Were they part of the fabled Six Million?”

In fact, the actual numbers were inflated, but not by Jewish historians trying to guilt the world into compensation. The Soviets overstated the number of non-Jewish victims for propaganda purposes. A noted historian, Raul Hillberg, estimated just over a million deaths at Auschwitz. He did that in 1950, and estimates by historians such as him have been always been the scholarly basis for determining the number of victims.

Debating whether the figure of six million is inflated is just tip of the iceberg. Other denial arguments center on the use of gas chambers in Nazi concentration camps. Still others question the role of top Nazi officials, pointing out that no document exists with Hitlers signature that instructs, “Kill all the Jews.”

Additionally, there are other minor details of the Holocaust that come up for questioning. The piles of hair, boots, and other gleanings from the victims of concentration camps are often criticized. Some cite this as a propaganda creation rather than actual Nazi collections. Others have criticized the Anne Franks diary, contending it was a post-war forgery

Like the above theories, all Holocaust denial, reflects a specific approach. The primary goal is usually to undermine a specific claim by ignoring the whole body of historical evidence and instead targeting a single, sometimes obscure, fact. This is perhaps the defining tactic of Holocaust denial.

Deniers will pull a reference from the historical record and present it as impossible. These statements often sound legitimate and serve a dual purpose to the average listener. Doubt is cast upon the specific claim, and the onus is placed back on those who claim the Holocaust happened. If they can raise enough doubts about enough claims, deniers believe they can undermine the entire Holocaust narrative by eroding public certainty.

Take for example the use of Zyklon-B in concentration camp gas chambers. The Institute for Historical Review, a denial organization, refers to a confession from Rudolf Hoss, the Nazi commandant at Auschwitz: “Hoss said in his confession that his men would smoke cigarettes as they pulled the dead Jews out of the gas chambers ten minutes after gassing. Isnt Zyklon-B explosive? Highly so. The Hoss confession is obviously false.”

Sounds plausible? Zyklon-B is explosiveso how does one account for the discrepancy here? To answer that, one needs to understand the minimal concentrations necessary for a gas to explode and terms such as “parts per million,” or point to the ventilation systems Nazis themselves installed in the gas chambers. By this point, however, deniers have reached their goal of planting doubt within their audience

Its this approach, rather than extreme claims about Jewish conspiracies, that can find an audience even among fair minded individuals. Dr. Robert Faurisson, a former French academic, made his name in the denial community first by focusing on the “problem of the gas chambers.” He later would argue that the Holocaust is a “Zionist lie” and a “huge financial swindle of which the state of Israel is the principal beneficiary.” This reflects a common sentiment among deniers, that the Holocaust has been, at the very least, exaggerated in order to benefit Jews and Israel financially. Nevertheless, denial arguments dont usually start with that conclusion. They end there.

A more immediate question arises when looking at the efforts of Holocaust deniers against a mountain of testimonials, documents, and historical research. The Nizkor Project, an anti-denial group based out of Canada, puts simply puts it: “Given the evidence why do people deny the Holocaust?”

Today, denial has largely been relegated to fringe hate groups, neo-Nazis, and blatant anti-Semites. So for the answer, its worth looking at what such groups themselves say on the subject. The Nizkor Project has an entire section of its website devoted to the statements of the National Socialist White Peoples Party on denial. Their leader, Harold Covington, is quoted from a 1996 bulletin paraphrasing leading critic of Holocaust denial Deborah Lipstadt:

“The real purpose of Holocaust revisionism is to make National Socialism an acceptable political alternative again,” Covington summarizes. Then he adds, “I normally dont agree with anything a Jew says, but I recall exclaiming, Bingo! Got it in one! Give that lady a cigar!”

Covington is quoted elsewhere as saying, “Take away the Holocaust and what do you have left? Without their precious Holocaust, what are the Jews? Just a grubby little bunch of international bandits and assassins and squatters who have perpetrated the most massive, cynical fraud in human history.”

Many see Holocaust denial as an anti-Semitic attempt to legitimize white power and hate group ideology. Though some deniers have attempted to minimize this reality and cloak their efforts in scholarship, their own statements reveal their primary motivations.

Still in the years just after the Holocaust, denial was less a blatantly anti-Semitic movement and more the outgrowth of extreme libertarianism, anti-war thinkers, and perpetrators themselves attempting to avoid blame.

The father of the denial movement was Harry Elmer Barnes. Hardly a raving anti-Semite, he was once a respected historian. He was an anti-war writer in the years prior to World War II, and after the war based his criticism of U.S. involvement on libertarian principles. It was these positions that led Barnes to write off the Holocaust as a piece of Allied propagandasomething most other libertarians rejected even while embracing his other writings.

However clear the historical record may be, it remains forever vulnerable to popular ignorance and apathy. The tactic of deniers is to pose questions, raise doubts, and ignore historical evidence. While informed people might call Holocaust denial ridiculous, their clear strategy and goals are far from that.

View post:
Holocaust Denial – My Jewish Learning

Fair Usage Law

January 8, 2016   Posted in: Holocaust Revisionism  Comments Closed

Holocaust Handbooks: Germar Rudolf: ‘Lectures on the …

Holocaust Handbooks, Volume 15:

In 1976, Holocaust revisionism produced its last “standard work,” if there ever was such a thing: A.R. Butz’ Hoax of the Twentieth Century. “How can a quarter century old text not be obsolete today?” Butz asks in the preface of the 2003 edition of his own book, pointing out “the age of this text, and the great advances that have subsequently occurred in Holocaust revisionism.” Hence, there is a great need for a new, integrated work summarizing Holocaust revisionism after 30 years of very intensive and thorough research.

And here it is, the new standard work of Holocaust revisionism! It was written by German scholar, writer, and publisher Germar Rudolf, based on the research of the most prominent revisionists, most of which Rudolf had the pleasure to publish in a multitude of German and English language journal articles and books over the past 15 years.

The book was written to fit the need of both those who have no in-depth knowledge of the Holocaust or of revisionism, as well as for well-versed readers familiar with revisionism. Anyone who wants to bring himself up to date on revisionist scholarship, but does not want to read all the special studies that were published during the past ten years, needs this book!

Since 1992, Rudolf has been giving lectures to various mainstream audiences all over the world. His topic is very controversial: the Holocaust in the light of new forensic and historical findings. Rudolfs sometimes astounding facts and arguments fall on fertile soil among his listeners, as they are presented in a very sensitive and scholarly way. This book is the literary version of Rudolfs lectures, enriched with the most recent findings of historiography.

The books style is unique: It is a dialogue between the lecturer and the reactions of the audience. Rudolf introduces the most important arguments and counter arguments of Holocaust revisionism. The audience reacts with supportive, skeptical, and also hostile questions. The Lectures read like an exciting real-life exchange between persons of various points of view. The usual moral, political, and pseudo-scientific arguments against revisionism are addressed and refuted. This book resembles an entertaining collection of answers to frequently asked questions on the Holocaust. With generous references to a vast bibliography, this easy-to-understand book is the best introduction into this taboo topic for both readers unfamiliar with the topic and for those wanting to know more.

2nd, revised and corrected edition, 500 pages. Format: pb, 6″9″, 151 illustrations, bibliography, index. Published by The Barnes Review (Washington, D.C.) in Oct. 2010. ISBN: 9781591480013 For prices please see retail outlets.

In case you decide to download a free PDF file of this book instead of purchasing a printed copy, please consider supporting the author for his efforts and for the injustices he has suffered (he was sentenced to 30 months imprisonment and a fine of 21,000 (some $28,000) for the German edition of this book) by making a donation. Details can be found on his website.

Electronic files of some (but not all) of the volumes of the Holocaust Handbooks have been released to the public domain for educational purposes only. Where this is the case, the files can be downloaded above. They may be copied and distributed by third parties free of charge only. No commercial use by third parties is permitted. If copied and distributed, no changes to the book are permitted without the prior written consent of the book’s author(s)/editor(s).

See the original post here:
Holocaust Handbooks: Germar Rudolf: ‘Lectures on the …

Fair Usage Law

December 25, 2015   Posted in: Holocaust Revisionism  Comments Closed

Ernst Nolte and Holocaust Revisionism – Abbie Conant

Ernst Nolte and Holocaust Revisionism

To the gen-mus list:

July 10, 2000

Last month we were discussing the women’s orchestra in Auswchwitz and it was suggested that more emphasis should be placed on the “gray areas” of the Holocaust. I think this comment might have seemed strange to some, and so I would like to provide information about the intellectual background here in Germany from which the suggestion -might- have derived. There have also been some recent controversial developments in Germany related to the Holocaust and historical research that might be of interest to historians on this list.

In June, one of Germany’s most prestigious literary prizes went to historian, Ernst Nolte, (a Professor at the Free University of Berlin) who has sought to partially justify the Holocaust by asserting it was in essence a riposte to Bolshevism[1]. He received the Konrad Adenauer Prize for literature, causing an uproar that has filled German newspapers with invective and divided one of Germany’s leading historical institutes.

The prize is awarded by the Munich-based Deutschland Foundation which is conservative, but had not been considered reactionary or revisionist.

Accepting the prize, Mr. Nolte said, ”We should leave behind the view that the opposite of National Socialist goals is always good and right.” He added that because Nazism was the ”strongest of all counter forces” to Bolshevism, a movement with wide Jewish support, Hitler may have had ”rational” reasons for attacking the Jews[2].

_The New York Times_ writes that the timing of the prize is particularly delicate because this is a “period of some intellectual ferment in Europe.” The success of Austrian rightist Jorg Haider in steering his Freedom Party into government has emboldened the right in other regions of Europe. “In Germany and France,” the Times writes, “a conservative reaction is evident against what the French call ‘the angelic left,’ which is accused of imposing a stifling political correctness on debate and of backing a multi-cultural tide that will sweep away the European nation state.”

Unease and anger in Germany over the prize has been accentuated by the fact that another prominent historian, Horst Moller, the director of the distinguished Institute for Contemporary History, chose to make the speech honoring Mr. Nolte. Perhaps this intellectual climate might help list members understand why they would be asked to examine the “gray areas” of the Holocaust, a notion that in many respects seems an invitation to revisionism.

For those interested, historian Benjamin B. Weber, provides a criticism of Nolte’s writings in an article entitled “Shades of Revisionism: Holocaust Denial and the Conservative Call to Reinterpret German History[3].” Weber suggests that the appeal of Nolte’s writings stems from the desire of some to believe that “the roots of the Holocaust do not lie in German antisemitism, but rather in the Bolshevik revolution,” a view that would “shift the blame from the German people to the communist Soviets.” Most scholars scoff at Nolte’s notion that the revolution of 1917 created a situation in which the German people were locked in a struggle to the death with European Jewry. Weber, however, asks us to imagine the effect Nolte’s ideas could have on young Germans today “who have difficulty accepting that their relatives belonged to a flagrantly criminal society[4].” Nolte’s distinguished reputation and academic credentials help lull young people into thinking the Holocaust was a defensive action.

Similar ideas have also shaped US politics. Unfounded concerns about “Jewish Bolshivists” caused anti-Semiticism to influence the “House Un-American Activities Committee” in the USA during the 1950s. Two of the most active McCarthyites, Richard Nixon and Ronald Regan, later became highly influential US Presidents.

Perhaps this helps explain why Nolte has a following among the far-right in the USA. In an article entitled “Nazifying the Germans,” Ralph Raico, a rightist Professor of History at Buffalo State College, reiterates and extols Nolte’s work. Raico agrees with Nolte that, “Keeping the Nazi period constantly before our eyes serves the ideological interests of a number of “influential groups” including “Zionists” and “American globalists.” Raico also complains that Hitler is used as a case against Americian isolationism [5]. His views are widely represented in the American far-right.

Like many authors, including both Nolte and members of the more moderate-right, Raico feels we are in the “midst of a vast campaign to delegitimize western civilization” (a criticism also often leveled at the “new musicology.”) Racio suggests that, “The obsession with the never-ending guilt of the Germans…advances the ends of those who look forward to the extinction of the nation-state and national identity, especially in the West.”

Nolte agrees, and provides an even more specific theory. He asserts that radical feminism joins Third World anti-Occidentalism and multiculturalism to “instrumentalize” the Holocaust for political purposes. He feels these groups place the Holocaust in the context of “various genocides by the predatory and conquering West, so that ‘homo hitlerensis’ ultimately appears as merely a special case of ‘homo occidentalis.'” According to Nolte, the purpose of this leftist portrayal of the West as genocidal is to strike at “the cultural and linguistic homogeneity of the national states, achieved over centuries, and open the gates to a massive immigration,” so that in the end the nations of the West should cease to exist. The trouble with Nolte’s thought seems to be that it trivializes atrocities Western nations have indeed committed.

In the mid 1980s, Jrgen Habermas, a professor of social philosophy at the University of Frankfurt, attacked Nolte’s views. A lively public debate evolved in Germany known as the “Historikerstreit” (“The Historian’s Conflict.”) in which Nolte was represented by the conservative _Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung_ and Habermas by the liberal weekly _Die Zeit_. Habermas suggested that Nolte’s revisionism was primarily a political issue stemming from the fact that many Germans born after 1945 are irritated at being held responsible for the crimes of their parents. Habermas criticized the revisionists for attempting to provide Germans with a history that would alleviate their sense of guilt. Rather than providing a more palatable interpretation of the German past, he demanded that historians leave it intact and that Germany face up to the horrors of Nazism. Habermas further suggested that revisionism would ultimately only discredit Germany.

Nolte’s writings, however, are widely applauded and represent themes that helped fuel Jorg Haider’s rise to power in Austria. As the _New York Times_ notes, “With Haiderism thriving in neighboring Austria, the ground has become fertile in Germany for a nationalist and right-wing intellectual awaking. It is fed by weariness, even anger, at what is seen as Germany’s eternal victimization for the Holocaust, and irritation at the multi-cultural message from a Red-Green government[6].”

In any case, Nolte and other members of the German right question the “intellectual tyranny” of the left and demand it recognize rational motivations for the “gray areas” of the Holocaust. Nolte’s critics, however, feel he and his followers advocate a dangerous and politically motivated historical revisionism.

William Osborne 100260.243@compuserve.com (You may forward this post. Please include the endnotes.)

[1] For a full report on the award to Nolte and the controversy surrounding it see Roger Cohen, “Hitler Apologist Wins German Honor, and a Storm Breaks Out” _The New York Times_ (June 21, 2000.) A copy is available on the web at [2] ibid. [3] Benjamin B. Weber, “Shades of Revisionism: Holocaust Denial and the Conservative Call to Reinterpret German History” _History Review_ (vol. 6, December 1994.) The journal is published by the University of Vermont. The article is available on the web at [4] ibid. [5] Ralph Raico, “Nazifying the Germans,” July10, 2000 [6] Roger Cohen, “Hitler Apologist Wins German Honor, and a Storm Breaks Out” _The New York Times_ (June 21, 2000.)

See the rest here:
Ernst Nolte and Holocaust Revisionism – Abbie Conant

Fair Usage Law

December 3, 2015   Posted in: Holocaust Revisionism  Comments Closed

HOLOCAUST REVISIONISM and its Effects 1 (and NUCLEAR …

The problem is communication, the way to communicate. Revisionists assume that people already knows a lot of thing in the right way. They think that they have only to explain or correct some facts, or some evidences, and “voil”. But it doesn’t work very well. Simply the alphabet, the syntax, the vocabulary, the grammar, the language is different. People got a heavy indoctrination. All the paradigms, not only Shoah, but everything surrounding is distorted. Let me say that is not new, and not only for Shoah.

The Emperor Nero was the very ancient Hitler, the ancient Satan. (Very much of the Hitler demonization was perfectly copied from the antique Nero demonization propaganda. Fire, flames, extermination, madman, a bit artist, cruel, paranoic, etc…). You know that Nero burned Rome, he murdered ten of thousands of Christians, burned them alive, crucificied them, or teared them to pieces by the lions in the Circus, while he was playing the lyra and singing. All that is a bunch of lies, but the books afterwards were written by historians who were just Christians or the Aristocratic class, strongly enemy of Nero. Among others, Nero made expecially 2 great reforms. One was a monetary reform, the other was a fiscal reform. Both were for the people and against the aristocratic class. Expecially the latter, because Nero took them a great part of their privilege to collect taxes, give permits, concessions, contracts and so on. (Only to understand the importance two small examples: one commercial ship contained at that time up to 10.000 tons of say of wine, grain, oil… The permit to import and deal given by the Aristocratic bureaucracy to a trader gave them some 25% of the earnings. Another example. Roman people didn’t live in the beautiful houses (domus) you have read in the school books. Only 1400 or 1500 owners with their families and slaves lived there. Roman citizens were 1,200,000-1,600,000 and they lived (paying a rent, not as owners) in the “insulae” i.e. six, eight, and often ten-storey-houses, or even 14 storey-houses, like the “Insula felicles”. There was an immense speculation at that time. You can understand the value of the building permits given by the Aristocratics). Even when there was the famous fire in Rome, Nero taxed them and made a requisition of 1/5 of their grain to help the population, the fixed strict rules for the new buildings and so on. You can understand how many enemies he had. After his death (64 A.D.) the demonization began. Every book speaking even a bit objectively was removed. But notwithstanding the heavy propaganda the Romans continued to preserve some memory. For more than 1000 years every 9 June, the day of the death of Nero, a great mass of people brought flowers on the (presumed) Nero mausoleum, ending only when the Pope Pasquale ordered in 1100 A.D. to destroy the grave and to build a chapel. (It subsequently become a famous Church in Rome: “Santa Maria del Popolo”). Every text-book, every newspaper, and then every film or every TV “historic” documentary, and everything in culture was distorted. And not because the truth was unknown. The truth was known.

For the Shoah the story is even worse, because the story is linked with the unconscious, because the media are quite heavier, because the films, the fiction, the survivors’ stories are so recent, and because people was scientifically stripped of the capacity of reasoning and trained to images and emotions. So, to conclude, it is not simply a matter of illustrating some facts, it is a matter of values inculcated through emotions and watchwords, and moreover of a different grammar between you and your listener. Your grammar is logic, his grammar is emotions and faith. If you don’t try to throw a bridge and approach his grammar, I think you are wasting your time. Sorry for my usual bad English.

Read more from the original source:
HOLOCAUST REVISIONISM and its Effects 1 (and NUCLEAR …

Fair Usage Law

November 24, 2015   Posted in: Holocaust Revisionism  Comments Closed

Why Netanyahu Needs Holocaust Revisionism and Israeli …

HAZEM BADER via Getty Images

Originally posted by The Progressive, October 27, 2015

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s October 20 speech claiming that Hitler had not planned to exterminate Jews until a prominent Palestinian cleric pressured him to do so, while outrageous, is consistent with the longstanding narrative of the right-wing government and its U.S. supporters.

As everyone from the German government to leading Israeli historians have noted, the charge that Grand Mufti Haj Amin al-Husseini was responsible for the Holocaust is ludicrous. Not only is there no record of such an exchange between the two, the meeting took place in late November 1941, four months after the “Final Solution” had been formally authorized. By that time, nearly one million Jews–primarily from Poland, Lithuania, Ukraine, Serbia, and Russia–had already been murdered.

Netanyahu’s goal in making such extremist remarks, in the immediate term, was to validate his insistence that the recent attacks on Israeli civilians by Palestinians stemmed not from retaliation for the larger number of killings of Palestinian civilians by Israelis, as leading Israeli security analysts have noted, nor from the frustrations over nearly 50 years of Israeli occupation, colonization, and repression. To the Israeli leader, the attacks are simply a result of a centuries-old hatred of the Jews.

Regardless of the motivation, the stabbings and shootings of this past month of eight Israelis–including both settlers in the occupied West Bank and within Israel itself–is certainly horrific and can never be justified.

However, during this same period, 57 Palestinians, including 13 children and a pregnant woman, have been killed by Israeli police, soldiers, or vigilantes. Some of the Palestinians killed were engaged in stabbings or stabbing attempts, though in a number of cases eyewitnesses insisted otherwise. In one incident, a man engaging in suspicious behavior killed by Israeli police was labeled a “terrorist,” but the government immediately dropped the label as soon as they discovered he was actually an Israeli Jew.

While other Palestinians were shot dead while engaging in violent protests, the majority of those killed appear to have not been involved in any violent or threatening activities. Among them was physician, Hebron community leader, and human rights activist Hesham Azzeh, an advocate of nonviolent resistance who had worked with both Israeli and international peace groups.

Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch, following the shooting of an HRW investigator by Israeli occupation forces, noted “indiscriminate or deliberate firing on observers and demonstrators who pose no imminent threat violates the international standards that bind Israeli security forces”

Meanwhile, in the United States, Hillary Clinton and members of Congress from both parties have gone on record condemning the killing of Israeli civilians by Palestinians, but not the larger number of Palestinian civilians by Israelis.

Leading Democrats on Capitol Hill have joined their Republican colleagues in demanding that Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas prevent the ongoing attacks against Israelis, despite the fact that the vast majority of them have been committed by Palestinians living in areas under exclusive Israeli control. Indeed, Israeli intelligence has noted that not only is there no evidence suggesting that President Abbas is inciting such attacks, but that he has directed his security forces to try to prevent any attacks from within territory under their jurisdiction.

The larger motivation behind Netanyahu’s ahistorical claims about the Holocaust appears to be part of his long-term strategy of portraying the Palestinian nationalist movement as little more than an effort by irrational fanatics to exterminate the Jews. This is why the rightist prime minister insists he cannot make peace. Indeed, in a speech on Monday regarding the West Bank, he reiterated his insistence that “we need to control all of the territory for the foreseeable future.”

Meanwhile, President Abbas, the recognized Palestinian government, the Palestine Liberation Organization, and the ruling Fatah party all remain on record accepting Israel’s right to exist with strict security guarantees on 78% of historic Palestine, but simply demanding an end of the occupation and colonization of the remaining 22% seized by Israel in the 1967 war.

It is this kind of moderation which makes it difficult for Israel to continue its refusal to make the necessary compromises for peace. This is why Netanyahu and his American supporters need to blame the violence exclusively on those under occupation, convince the public that Arabs and Muslims simply want the Jews annihilated, and frighten Israelis into rejecting Palestinian offers for peace.

See the article here:
Why Netanyahu Needs Holocaust Revisionism and Israeli …

Fair Usage Law

October 28, 2015   Posted in: Holocaust Revisionism  Comments Closed

HOLOCAUSTREVISIONISM – YouTube

Holocaust Revisionists and Historians claim that the genocide of Jews during World War II ~ usually referred to as the Holocaust did not occur at all (seldom) or in the manner or to the extent historically recognized.

Key elements of these claims are the rejection of any of the following :: that the German Nazi Government had a policy of deliberately targeting Jews for extermination as a people; that more than six million Jews were systematically killed by the Nazis and their allies; and that genocide was carried out at Concentration Camps using tools of mass murder, such as gas chambers etc etc. An Extensive documentary showing the lengths Zionists went to in order to bring about their goal of achieving the illegal state of Israel.

Original Uploader and Website: http://www.youtube.com/user… http://www.onethirdofthehol…

Please-View-Holocaust-Revisionism-Playlist-For-Holo-Videos http://www.youtube.com/play…

International Red Cross Official Holocaust Total Death Records http://truedemocracyparty.n…

More Info http://www.codoh.com http://www.barnesreview.org http://www.vho.org http://www.zundelsite.org http://www.nazigassings.com http://www.ihr.org

Original ‘One Third of the Holocaust’ Upload With ‘198.760’ Views Deleted With Channel ‘IMMORTALTRUTHZx’ on 14/11/2012. Show less

See the original post here:
HOLOCAUSTREVISIONISM – YouTube

Fair Usage Law

October 9, 2015   Posted in: Holocaust Revisionism  Comments Closed

Not a single Jew died in a gas chamber [Holocaust …

Please sign the petition of support: http://petitions.tigweb.org/FSSPX

His view is that about 2-300 000 Jews may have perished in the Nazi working camps. – But not one of them died in gas chambers, Richard Williamson argues.

“- Anti-Semitism can only be bad if it is against the truth. But if something is true, it cant be bad. I am not interested in the word anti-Semitism.”

For a follow up, look at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZRINE… and at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x9BCWW… (“More info ….”).

The Crucifixion of Bishop Williamson http://truthisbeauty.wordpress.com/20 ” – As I observe the vilification of Bishop Williamson occurring in the Catholic blogosphere, I cant help but recall the gospel account of the crucifixion of Christ Himself. For with the exception of the Blessed Mother and St. John, the rest of His apostles had abandoned Him, quaking in their boots for fear of the Jews (John 19:38).”

I believe in freedom of speech for Bishop Williamson http://revisionistreview.blogspot.com…

The John Paul II Theology of Pope Benedict XVI http://revisionistreview.blogspot.com…

‘Holocaust bishop’ told to recant http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/786…

For a German translation of the interview: http://globalfire.tv/nj/09de/religion… .An English transcript at http://globalfire.tv/nj/09en/religion…

More about Williamson at http://blog.balder.org/?p=600, at http://jackmyers.daylife.com/topic/Ri… and at http://www.tellingfilms.co.uk/gledhil…

Bishop Richard Williamson’s own blog “Dinoscopus” at http://dinoscopus.blogspot.com/ ” – Amidst this tremendous media storm stirred up by imprudent remarks of mine on Swedish television, I beg of you to accept, only as is properly respectful, my sincere regrets for having caused to yourself and to the Holy Father so much unnecessary distress and problems.”

Bishop [Richard] Willamson’s Letters 1991 – 2003 at http://sspx.ca/Documents/Bishop-Willi…

The Society of St. Pius X has forbidden Bishop Williamson from speaking on any historical and political matters: ” – Therefore I prohibit Bishop Williamson until further notice from speaking in public on political or historic questions.” http://www.remnantnewspaper.com/Archi…

Priest in Italy defends Holocaust-denier: “- In Thursday’s interview, Abrahamowicz defended the bishop, saying Williamson had not denied the Holocaust but had only questioned the “technical aspect” of the gas chambers.” http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/a…

Der Spiegel, no. 4/2009, page 3: – An actual event that occurred near Regensburg (Germany) at a sanctification of deacons in November 2008 at All Saints Day, could damage the already tense relation between Catholics and Jews even more.

Monsignore Williamson, who was commissioned by Arch Bishop Marcel Lefebvre, the founder of The St. Pius X brotherhood, to persue with the founders lifework, came to Zeitzkofen where The St. Piux X Church conducts a seminary in a baroque palace.

At All Saint’s Day the Swedish convert, Sten Sandmark, was to be consecrated as a new deacon at the seminary. It was because Sandmark’s conversion from the Protestant Church to The St. Pius X Church had caused a scandal in Sweden. Therefore the Stockholm based TV journalist Ali Fegan was present to capture the event for Swedish Television. After the consecration, Fegan interviewed Monsignore Williamson and others in the palaces chapel.

In the course of the interview the subject of Nazi crimes came up. The footage shows how Williamson paused for a moment and then said that he does not believe that six million Jews were gassed in gas chambers. On the sudden counter question: “So, there weren’t any gas chambers?”, the bishop replied: “I believe, gas chambers never existed, yes.”

In this matter, he said, he sides with the “revisionists” who believe that “two to three hundred thousand Jews in Nazi concentration camps died. But not one of them had been killed by gas in a gas chambers.”

Then the clergyman talked much about technical impossibilities, the heights of Chimneys and improper doors because they were untight, but that they were still shown today to “the tourists” at Auschwitz-Birkenau.

“If this is not anti-Semitism”, the Swedish interviewer dug deeper, “what is it?” Bishop Williamson: “Anti-Semitism can only be bad if it is against the truth. But if something is true, it cant be bad. I am not interested in the word anti-Semitism.”

Read more:
Not a single Jew died in a gas chamber [Holocaust …

Fair Usage Law

October 7, 2015   Posted in: Holocaust Revisionism  Comments Closed

Holocaust Revisionism, Free Speech, and Internet. (1997 …

Quotation Let me start with an account:

According to the New York Times of October 3, 1965 there have been.. 170,000 civilians killed; 800,000 maimed by torture; 5,000 burnt alive, disembowelled or beheaded; 100,000 killed or maimed by chemical poisons; 400,000 detained and tortured savagely. One method of torture used by the American troops is partial electrocution or frying as one United States Adviser called itby attaching live wires to male genital organs or the breasts of Vietnamese women prisoners.

Already 8,000,000 villagers are living in the 6,000 hamlets so far completed.. with bamboo fences, barbed wire, and armed militiamen.

Whats the relevance of that? Well see later.

Outline On the principle of telling them what youre going to tell them, this is what Im going to say: First, some comments on Internet, since this is the source of this talk. I should make it clear Im not obsessed by this topic and indeed only became aware of its existence a month or two ago. Many of the things said came as a surprise to me, and Ill flag these during my talk. Ill also supplement Internet with a few publications, of the sort readily available in second-hand bookshops. Then some comments on free speech and the issues surrounding it, including technology. This is apparently a well-worn theme and Ill try not to be too banal. Then Ill survey revisionism as a concept, and home in on holocaust revisionism, looking first at the types of revisionists. Then Ill go into detail as to the personalities involved, first the revisionists, then the anti-revisionists. Ill have to look at the Nuremberg Military Tribunal, and try to summarise the evidence brought by revisionists and by anti-revisionists. Ill end with political and historical comments (some addressed specifically to the left.)

The Internet On Internet, opinions vary; Christopher Hitchens said its been tremendously oversold, youll get oligopolies and the same consumerist hogwash; he likes print. John Pilger said look to see who controls the Internet; the American government and multinationals. I ought to point out that, in fact, its quite difficult to use; skilled computer people can store downloaded text on their computers for use later, but unskilled ones find this difficult; in my view, the promotional campaigns of the BBCs Computers Dont Bite type are dangerously misleading; Ive seen adults go into rages of frustration trying to work these things. There are dangers of losing all ones work, and so on. In practice, most users seem to belong to institutionstypically students or employees who offload the costs onto their organisations. Many sites are maintained not by the people whose names appear there, but by associates or friends or whatever. Incidentally youll often be told that the quality of the material is very poor. In my opinion this isnt truethe medium is purely verbal, theres no way of making your points other than through well-chosen words, and the standard is generally not at all bad, though of course much of it is repetitive and rather silly. Incidentally many people dont know theres a subset of Internet called Usenet, consisting of thousands of interest groups, a bit like special-interest magazines.

Free Speech On free speech, the amazing thing really is that such an ideology exists at all. You might expect any group having achieved some sort of dominance to oppose free speech, and generally this is true. Roughly speaking, without straining for precision, you might divide a population into well-off & poor, and also into intelligent and not intelligent; this gives four types, of which only two are likely to be interested in free speech; and of these, established people generally cant be expected to favour free speechKing George V said people who write books ought to be shut up. That was his contribution to culture. Many important intellectual changes have therefore only been introduced by the intelligent not-well-off, for this reason; Im thinking for example of Faraday. This is the pragmatic argument for free speech; something useful might come of it. But in practice free speech is something of a dead letterand Ill give this organisation as an example! So far as I know, in its 100 years, nobody at South Place has ever spoken on the financial resources of the Church of England. [Or of course the Talmud, and Jewish issues]. With critics like that, establishments can rest easy. This sort of thing of course isnt anything special; for example, democracy is more of a slogan than a reality; free trade is generally a cover for the expansion of strong economies, and theres an analogy with free speech, which may be a cover for pushing pornography or Hollywood tripe or what not. Many of the theoreticians of free speech are more restrictive than is generally realised; Miltons Areopagitica , at least according to Chomsky, advocates licensing of books rather than anything that would normally be considered free speech. John Stuart Mill would not (e.g.) allow the view that Queen Victoria should be assassinated, even by someone conscientiously convinced that it would be a good thing. So generally free speech is conceived in rather vague terms, and I think its fair to say nobody has come up with a theory to adequately deal with it. As a problematic issue you might take secrecy of banking, which seems more secure even than government, where there are at least 30 or 100 year rules on documents allowed to survive; but banks have no obligation to publish papers (as far as I know). And in practice censors dont take a theoretical line; they just cut out anything that might be tricky. One of the most important determinants of free speech is technological change; for example the Arab world had not one single printing press until the 1880s. In Britain, the Levellers broke up the Stationers Company monopoly, partly because printing was becoming easier. Similarly theres a widespread belief that the Dutch were valuable in the 17th century, as permitting the publication of books banned in Britain and elsewhere. In my view this is probably a mistakeif you consider Dutch printers, they had the capacity to print books, but demand in Dutch of course was limited. So an Englishman with a bag of gold wanting 200 copies of a book on how terrible the Archbishop of Canterbury was would be an attractive proposition. Something similar appears to be the case with Internet; providers of it want to make moneyor, if Ive read the press aright, in most cases, want to lose less of it. Technology is also important because the most up-to-date type looks reliable. About the time of the first world war, Ive read, English people believed newspapers were as reliable as encyclopaedias, and this must have been a factor in promoting the war. Later, radio was the thing, and one finds for example Bernard Shaw, when he wasnt writing in his garden shed, listening to his radio most of the time. This attitude still exists in some elderly people, who imagine the 1 oclock BBC news to be the apex of accurate communication.

Revisionism as a Concept Right. Lets look at revisionism as a concept. As far as I know the word originated with Marxism, Bernstein starting the revisionist movement of the German sozialdemokratisch movement. Lenin wrote on this disapprovingly in (or before) 1908. There are no doubt religious revisionists too, considering e.g. whether Jesus Christ ever existed. But by now its extended into very many fields; in history journals Ive found revisionism applied to the Merovingians, Danes, and 19th century Wales. If we consider WW2, we find what we might call left-wing revisionists who point e.g. to Standard Oil of New Jersey, which seems to have supplied Germany with oil through the war, or Opel (the German branch of General Motors) making German armoured cars; I might quote Tony Benn: I think its time we did a bit of reexamination, you know, of the 1930s and got away from the idea that the British government believed in appeasement. They didnt .. appease Hitler. They supported Hitler. They backed Hitler. .. captured German foreign office youll find that when Halifax went to talk to Hitler on behalf of the British government the first thing he did was to congratulate the German chancellor on having destroyed communism in Germany, and acted as a bulwark against it in Europe. And the whole of that 1930s period was a period when western governments were happy to use fascism in order to destroy socialism in all its forms, not just in Russia but in the west as well. … Revisionists also look at the entire basis for war: Robert Blake, the Disraeli biographer, Why Britain Went to War:It would be nice to say that Britain fought for idealsdemocracy, freedom, the rule of law etc. But it would be untrue. Britain fought because government and people believed that its existence as a great imperial power was threatened. In America, Gabriel Kolko was, or should have been, very influential, on the American Empire. Now. Until recently Id more or less ignored what Id thought of as right-wing revisionists. In fact, at least on the Internet, the word revisionism now applies only to holocaust revisionism. For example, theres a Usenet site called alt.revisionism devoted entirely to this topic. However, Ill look at the various distinctive people and groups which you find if you search using the key phrase holocaust revisionism or revisionist.

Holocaust Revisionists Beliefs First, for orientation purposes, Ill try to summarise what the revisionists claim in common, the subset of beliefs that more or less unite them. These are actually fairly simple: the claims are that a deliberate extermination policy of Jews didnt exist, that gas chambers are a myth, and that although lots of Jews died, the deaths werent proportionally more than other groups; Czechs, Poles, Ukrainians, Russians, various Baltic peoples; a quarter of all British merchant seamen. Those are the key beliefs, but of course, as you appreciate many other issues get brought in. Many of these issues are very well-established taboos indeed, but, as were in a sort of temple of rationalism, Ill list a few which seem important; (i) that Jews actually are descended from Jews, (ii) that Jews took no special part in the Bolshevik revolution, (iii) that Judaism is a fundamentalist/racist ideology. Thus for example E H Carrs series of books on the Bolshevik Revolution, which came out from the 1950s, has virtually no mention of Jews, despite purporting to be serious history; its rather like discussing former Yugoslavia without mentioning Moslems and Christians.

Types of Holocaust Revisionist The next section is the longest; Ill look at the most important revisionists, at least as far as I can judge by their Internet presences. First lets see the motivations. There seem to be about ten categories: Some seem purely anti Semitic, for example posting more or less selective lists of what famous people have said about JewsVoltaire, Henry Ford, George Washington, Mark Twain. Some are anti-Zionist and/or pro-Palestinians. Theres a group called Radio Islam of this sort; Ill talk more about them later. Some are German-extraction Americans; I recall reading in a paper that a third of all Americans in the US claim German ancestry (whatever that means), and such people have a motivation of course for not being anti-German. There also seem to be white Russian or Polish types who consider Bolsheviks were Jewish, some of them Catholics (cf. Hilaire Belloc, the Roman Catholic who wrote his book The Jews in 1922). There are anti-Communists, laying stress on Stalins crimes rather than Hitlers. There are miscellaneous types including for example Protestant fundamentalists, blacks like Louis Farrakhan, and other black Americans, quite a few of whom seem to dislike American Jews, and also whites who think their power is slipping. It may seem strange to think of the 1930s or 1950s as a golden age, but then US cars led the world, the blacks were kept in their place, and so on. Another site is Michael A. Hoffmann II, who looks among other things at neglected aspects of history like white slavery in the US. There are groups who consider fairly taboo second world war issues, such as the connections between Zionism and the Third Reich. Common sense suggests there must be Polish or Hungarian or South African groups and others, but if so theyre not on Internet, or not much. And there are, I presume, genuine truth-seekers, who are interested in truth in history, who might or might not be in some of the previous groups. Ill concentrate on what I take to be people of this sort.

Read more here:
Holocaust Revisionism, Free Speech, and Internet. (1997 …

Fair Usage Law

July 12, 2015   Posted in: Holocaust Revisionism  Comments Closed

FAQ about Holocaust Revisionism – VHO

Welcome to our Introduction to Historical Revisionism!

In the following text you will find the questions which are most frequently asked about Holocaust Revisionism. You will find our answers by simply clicking your mouse on the question. We also offer a leaflet for free download which summarizes Holocaust Revisionism in a nutshell. This is the perfect flyer for a brief introduction and as a handout to others. Castle Hill wishes you a lot of worthwhile discoveries while browsing through the following page.

Questions and Answers

If you have further questions, please do not hesitate to ask: question@vho.org

The word “Revisionism” is derived from the Latin word “revidere,” which means to view again. The revision of long held theories is entirely normal. It occurs in the natural sciences as well as the social sciences, to which the discipline of history belongs. Science is not a static condition. It is a process, specifically the creating of knowledge by searching for evidence. When ongoing research finds new evidence, or when critical researchers discover mistakes in old explanations, it often happens that old theories have to be changed or even abandoned.

By “Revisionism” we mean critically examining established theories and hypotheses in order to test their validity. Scientists need to know when new evidence modifies or contradicts old theories; indeed, one of their main obligations is to test time-honored conceptions and attempt to refute them. Only in an open society in which individuals are free to challenge prevailing theories can we ascertain the validity of these theories, and be confident that we are approaching the truth. For a fuller discussion of this, the reader should acquaint himself with the essay by Dr. C. Nordbruch in the Neuer Zrcher Zeitung of 12 June 1999.

Return to Questions

Like other scientific concepts, our historical concepts are subject to critical consideration. This is especially true when new evidence is discovered. We must constantly re-examine historical theories, particularly in case:

When we are dealing with the distant past, even a small piece of new evidence can profoundly change our views. As for the recent past, the truism “the victor writes the history of the war” still holds; and victor is hardly ever objective. Revision of victor-history is usually not possible until the confrontation between victor and vanquished has ceased to exist; and sometimes these confrontations last for centuries. Since historiography has negligible monetary significance, almost all historical institutes are financed by their respective governments. Free and independent historical institutes are practically nonexistent. In contemporary history, in which individual governments have huge political interests, we must be skeptical toward the official historiography. Another truism reminds us that “he who pays the piper, calls the tune.” These reasons explain why Historical Revisionism is important and why the rulers of the world tend to oppose it.

Return to Questions

Here is the original post:
FAQ about Holocaust Revisionism – VHO

Fair Usage Law

July 12, 2015   Posted in: Holocaust Revisionism  Comments Closed

Holocaust Denial – My Jewish Learning

Understanding the arguments of so-called revisionists. By Bradford R. Pilcher How do we know the number of Jews killed in the Holocaust is six million, as opposed to six hundred thousand? What evidence exists that murdering of Jews was official Nazi policy and not the acts of rogue individuals? How do we know that gas chambers were used for mass murder? Most people would never think to ask these questions. In popular history, it is taken as a given that six million Jews perished at the hands of the Nazi regime. Nevertheless, Holocaust deniers question these facts. Some even go so far as to claim that a genocide against the Jewish people never took place, that any deaths of Jewish Europeans during World War II was the result of natural events in wartime. The president of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, for example has made this exact argument repeatedly. Deniers argue that claims to the contrary are part of a historical lie perpetrated by Jewish leaders, political figures, and historians. One of the most frequent challenges posed by the Holocaust deniers is calling into question the “6 million” figure. Various deniers claim the actual number is only a million or a few hundred thousand. Holocaust denial proponents point to the World Almanac for proof. The 1940 edition listed the worlds Jewish population at 15,319,359. By the 1949 edition, deniers assert, that figure is listed as 15,713,638. How could six million, over one-third of all Jews in the world, be murdered and the population increase? Historians immediately point out that the 1949 World Almanac does not list that figure for the world Jewish population. Instead, the increased number was taken from an erroneous Senate Judiciary Committee report in 1950. Anybody looking in the 1949 World Almanac would instead see the figure of 11,266,600, along with a revision of the 1939 population upwards to more than 16-and-a-half million. Another argument stems from the change to a commemorative plaque at Auschwitz. Until 1994, the plaque read “Four million people suffered and died here at the hands of the Nazi murderers between the years 1940 and 1945.” In 1991, that plaque was replaced with a new one that listed only one and a half million victims, “a majority of them Jews.” Deniers quickly pointed to the revision as proof that the numbers were inflated. Bradley Smith, a prominent denier who gained notoriety by sending ads to college newspapers questioning facts about the Holocaust, sent out an ad in 1992: The Auschwitz State Museum has recently revised its half-century-old claim that 4 million humans were murdered there. The Museum now says maybe it was 1 million. But what proof does the Museum provide to document the 1 million figure? None! The communist propagandists who manage the museum have put on display piles of hair, boots and eyeglasses, etc. While such displays are effective propaganda devices, they are worthless as historical documentation for gassings or a program of extermination.” “Meanwhile, Revisionists want to know where those 3 million souls have been the last 45 years. Were they part of the fabled Six Million?” In fact, the actual numbers were inflated, but not by Jewish historians trying to guilt the world into compensation. The Soviets overstated the number of non-Jewish victims for propaganda purposes. A noted historian, Raul Hillberg, estimated just over a million deaths at Auschwitz. He did that in 1950, and estimates by historians such as him have been always been the scholarly basis for determining the number of victims. Debating whether the figure of six million is inflated is just tip of the iceberg. Other denial arguments center on the use of gas chambers in Nazi concentration camps. Still others question the role of top Nazi officials, pointing out that no document exists with Hitlers signature that instructs, “Kill all the Jews.” Additionally, there are other minor details of the Holocaust that come up for questioning. The piles of hair, boots, and other gleanings from the victims of concentration camps are often criticized. Some cite this as a propaganda creation rather than actual Nazi collections. Others have criticized the Anne Franks diary, contending it was a post-war forgery Like the above theories, all Holocaust denial, reflects a specific approach. The primary goal is usually to undermine a specific claim by ignoring the whole body of historical evidence and instead targeting a single, sometimes obscure, fact. This is perhaps the defining tactic of Holocaust denial. Deniers will pull a reference from the historical record and present it as impossible. These statements often sound legitimate and serve a dual purpose to the average listener. Doubt is cast upon the specific claim, and the onus is placed back on those who claim the Holocaust happened. If they can raise enough doubts about enough claims, deniers believe they can undermine the entire Holocaust narrative by eroding public certainty. Take for example the use of Zyklon-B in concentration camp gas chambers. The Institute for Historical Review, a denial organization, refers to a confession from Rudolf Hoss, the Nazi commandant at Auschwitz: “Hoss said in his confession that his men would smoke cigarettes as they pulled the dead Jews out of the gas chambers ten minutes after gassing. Isnt Zyklon-B explosive? Highly so. The Hoss confession is obviously false.” Sounds plausible? Zyklon-B is explosiveso how does one account for the discrepancy here? To answer that, one needs to understand the minimal concentrations necessary for a gas to explode and terms such as “parts per million,” or point to the ventilation systems Nazis themselves installed in the gas chambers. By this point, however, deniers have reached their goal of planting doubt within their audience Its this approach, rather than extreme claims about Jewish conspiracies, that can find an audience even among fair minded individuals. Dr. Robert Faurisson, a former French academic, made his name in the denial community first by focusing on the “problem of the gas chambers.” He later would argue that the Holocaust is a “Zionist lie” and a “huge financial swindle of which the state of Israel is the principal beneficiary.” This reflects a common sentiment among deniers, that the Holocaust has been, at the very least, exaggerated in order to benefit Jews and Israel financially. Nevertheless, denial arguments dont usually start with that conclusion. They end there. A more immediate question arises when looking at the efforts of Holocaust deniers against a mountain of testimonials, documents, and historical research. The Nizkor Project, an anti-denial group based out of Canada, puts simply puts it: “Given the evidence why do people deny the Holocaust?” Today, denial has largely been relegated to fringe hate groups, neo-Nazis, and blatant anti-Semites. So for the answer, its worth looking at what such groups themselves say on the subject. The Nizkor Project has an entire section of its website devoted to the statements of the National Socialist White Peoples Party on denial. Their leader, Harold Covington, is quoted from a 1996 bulletin paraphrasing leading critic of Holocaust denial Deborah Lipstadt: “The real purpose of Holocaust revisionism is to make National Socialism an acceptable political alternative again,” Covington summarizes. Then he adds, “I normally dont agree with anything a Jew says, but I recall exclaiming, Bingo! Got it in one! Give that lady a cigar!” Covington is quoted elsewhere as saying, “Take away the Holocaust and what do you have left? Without their precious Holocaust, what are the Jews? Just a grubby little bunch of international bandits and assassins and squatters who have perpetrated the most massive, cynical fraud in human history.” Many see Holocaust denial as an anti-Semitic attempt to legitimize white power and hate group ideology. Though some deniers have attempted to minimize this reality and cloak their efforts in scholarship, their own statements reveal their primary motivations. Still in the years just after the Holocaust, denial was less a blatantly anti-Semitic movement and more the outgrowth of extreme libertarianism, anti-war thinkers, and perpetrators themselves attempting to avoid blame. The father of the denial movement was Harry Elmer Barnes. Hardly a raving anti-Semite, he was once a respected historian. He was an anti-war writer in the years prior to World War II, and after the war based his criticism of U.S. involvement on libertarian principles. It was these positions that led Barnes to write off the Holocaust as a piece of Allied propagandasomething most other libertarians rejected even while embracing his other writings. However clear the historical record may be, it remains forever vulnerable to popular ignorance and apathy. The tactic of deniers is to pose questions, raise doubts, and ignore historical evidence. While informed people might call Holocaust denial ridiculous, their clear strategy and goals are far from that. Did you like this article? MyJewishLearning is a not-for-profit organization. Please consider making a donation today. Bradford R. Pilcher is the Managing Editor of American Jewish Life magazine. His writing has appeared in venues such as Wired News, PopMatters, Jewsweek, and he has served as an advisor to the National Museum of American Jewish History. How do we know the number of Jews killed in the Holocaust is six million, as opposed to six hundred thousand? What evidence exists that murdering of Jews was official Nazi policy and not the acts of rogue individuals? How do we know that gas chambers were used for mass murder? Most people would never think to ask these questions. In popular history, it is taken as a given that six million Jews perished at the hands of the Nazi regime. Nevertheless, Holocaust deniers question these facts. Some even go so far as to claim that a genocide against the Jewish people never took place, that any deaths of Jewish Europeans during World War II was the result of natural events in wartime. The president of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, for example has made this exact argument repeatedly. Deniers argue that claims to the contrary are part of a historical lie perpetrated by Jewish leaders, political figures, and historians. One of the most frequent challenges posed by the Holocaust deniers is calling into question the “6 million” figure. Various deniers claim the actual number is only a million or a few hundred thousand. Holocaust denial proponents point to the World Almanac for proof. The 1940 edition listed the worlds Jewish population at 15,319,359. By the 1949 edition, deniers assert, that figure is listed as 15,713,638. How could six million, over one-third of all Jews in the world, be murdered and the population increase? Historians immediately point out that the 1949 World Almanac does not list that figure for the world Jewish population. Instead, the increased number was taken from an erroneous Senate Judiciary Committee report in 1950. Anybody looking in the 1949 World Almanac would instead see the figure of 11,266,600, along with a revision of the 1939 population upwards to more than 16-and-a-half million. Another argument stems from the change to a commemorative plaque at Auschwitz. Until 1994, the plaque read “Four million people suffered and died here at the hands of the Nazi murderers between the years 1940 and 1945.” In 1991, that plaque was replaced with a new one that listed only one and a half million victims, “a majority of them Jews.” Deniers quickly pointed to the revision as proof that the numbers were inflated. Bradley Smith, a prominent denier who gained notoriety by sending ads to college newspapers questioning facts about the Holocaust, sent out an ad in 1992: The Auschwitz State Museum has recently revised its half-century-old claim that 4 million humans were murdered there. The Museum now says maybe it was 1 million. But what proof does the Museum provide to document the 1 million figure? None! The communist propagandists who manage the museum have put on display piles of hair, boots and eyeglasses, etc. While such displays are effective propaganda devices, they are worthless as historical documentation for gassings or a program of extermination.” “Meanwhile, Revisionists want to know where those 3 million souls have been the last 45 years. Were they part of the fabled Six Million?” In fact, the actual numbers were inflated, but not by Jewish historians trying to guilt the world into compensation. The Soviets overstated the number of non-Jewish victims for propaganda purposes. A noted historian, Raul Hillberg, estimated just over a million deaths at Auschwitz. He did that in 1950, and estimates by historians such as him have been always been the scholarly basis for determining the number of victims. Debating whether the figure of six million is inflated is just tip of the iceberg. Other denial arguments center on the use of gas chambers in Nazi concentration camps. Still others question the role of top Nazi officials, pointing out that no document exists with Hitlers signature that instructs, “Kill all the Jews.” Additionally, there are other minor details of the Holocaust that come up for questioning. The piles of hair, boots, and other gleanings from the victims of concentration camps are often criticized. Some cite this as a propaganda creation rather than actual Nazi collections. Others have criticized the Anne Franks diary, contending it was a post-war forgery Like the above theories, all Holocaust denial, reflects a specific approach. The primary goal is usually to undermine a specific claim by ignoring the whole body of historical evidence and instead targeting a single, sometimes obscure, fact. This is perhaps the defining tactic of Holocaust denial. Deniers will pull a reference from the historical record and present it as impossible. These statements often sound legitimate and serve a dual purpose to the average listener. Doubt is cast upon the specific claim, and the onus is placed back on those who claim the Holocaust happened. If they can raise enough doubts about enough claims, deniers believe they can undermine the entire Holocaust narrative by eroding public certainty. Take for example the use of Zyklon-B in concentration camp gas chambers. The Institute for Historical Review, a denial organization, refers to a confession from Rudolf Hoss, the Nazi commandant at Auschwitz: “Hoss said in his confession that his men would smoke cigarettes as they pulled the dead Jews out of the gas chambers ten minutes after gassing. Isnt Zyklon-B explosive? Highly so. The Hoss confession is obviously false.” Sounds plausible? Zyklon-B is explosiveso how does one account for the discrepancy here? To answer that, one needs to understand the minimal concentrations necessary for a gas to explode and terms such as “parts per million,” or point to the ventilation systems Nazis themselves installed in the gas chambers. By this point, however, deniers have reached their goal of planting doubt within their audience Its this approach, rather than extreme claims about Jewish conspiracies, that can find an audience even among fair minded individuals. Dr. Robert Faurisson, a former French academic, made his name in the denial community first by focusing on the “problem of the gas chambers.” He later would argue that the Holocaust is a “Zionist lie” and a “huge financial swindle of which the state of Israel is the principal beneficiary.” This reflects a common sentiment among deniers, that the Holocaust has been, at the very least, exaggerated in order to benefit Jews and Israel financially. Nevertheless, denial arguments dont usually start with that conclusion. They end there. A more immediate question arises when looking at the efforts of Holocaust deniers against a mountain of testimonials, documents, and historical research. The Nizkor Project, an anti-denial group based out of Canada, puts simply puts it: “Given the evidence why do people deny the Holocaust?” Today, denial has largely been relegated to fringe hate groups, neo-Nazis, and blatant anti-Semites. So for the answer, its worth looking at what such groups themselves say on the subject. The Nizkor Project has an entire section of its website devoted to the statements of the National Socialist White Peoples Party on denial. Their leader, Harold Covington, is quoted from a 1996 bulletin paraphrasing leading critic of Holocaust denial Deborah Lipstadt: “The real purpose of Holocaust revisionism is to make National Socialism an acceptable political alternative again,” Covington summarizes. Then he adds, “I normally dont agree with anything a Jew says, but I recall exclaiming, Bingo! Got it in one! Give that lady a cigar!” Covington is quoted elsewhere as saying, “Take away the Holocaust and what do you have left? Without their precious Holocaust, what are the Jews? Just a grubby little bunch of international bandits and assassins and squatters who have perpetrated the most massive, cynical fraud in human history.” Many see Holocaust denial as an anti-Semitic attempt to legitimize white power and hate group ideology. Though some deniers have attempted to minimize this reality and cloak their efforts in scholarship, their own statements reveal their primary motivations. Still in the years just after the Holocaust, denial was less a blatantly anti-Semitic movement and more the outgrowth of extreme libertarianism, anti-war thinkers, and perpetrators themselves attempting to avoid blame. The father of the denial movement was Harry Elmer Barnes. Hardly a raving anti-Semite, he was once a respected historian. He was an anti-war writer in the years prior to World War II, and after the war based his criticism of U.S. involvement on libertarian principles. It was these positions that led Barnes to write off the Holocaust as a piece of Allied propagandasomething most other libertarians rejected even while embracing his other writings. However clear the historical record may be, it remains forever vulnerable to popular ignorance and apathy. The tactic of deniers is to pose questions, raise doubts, and ignore historical evidence. While informed people might call Holocaust denial ridiculous, their clear strategy and goals are far from that.

Fair Usage Law

January 8, 2016   Posted in: Holocaust Revisionism  Comments Closed

Holocaust Handbooks: Germar Rudolf: ‘Lectures on the …

Holocaust Handbooks, Volume 15: In 1976, Holocaust revisionism produced its last “standard work,” if there ever was such a thing: A.R. Butz’ Hoax of the Twentieth Century. “How can a quarter century old text not be obsolete today?” Butz asks in the preface of the 2003 edition of his own book, pointing out “the age of this text, and the great advances that have subsequently occurred in Holocaust revisionism.” Hence, there is a great need for a new, integrated work summarizing Holocaust revisionism after 30 years of very intensive and thorough research. And here it is, the new standard work of Holocaust revisionism! It was written by German scholar, writer, and publisher Germar Rudolf, based on the research of the most prominent revisionists, most of which Rudolf had the pleasure to publish in a multitude of German and English language journal articles and books over the past 15 years. The book was written to fit the need of both those who have no in-depth knowledge of the Holocaust or of revisionism, as well as for well-versed readers familiar with revisionism. Anyone who wants to bring himself up to date on revisionist scholarship, but does not want to read all the special studies that were published during the past ten years, needs this book! Since 1992, Rudolf has been giving lectures to various mainstream audiences all over the world. His topic is very controversial: the Holocaust in the light of new forensic and historical findings. Rudolfs sometimes astounding facts and arguments fall on fertile soil among his listeners, as they are presented in a very sensitive and scholarly way. This book is the literary version of Rudolfs lectures, enriched with the most recent findings of historiography. The books style is unique: It is a dialogue between the lecturer and the reactions of the audience. Rudolf introduces the most important arguments and counter arguments of Holocaust revisionism. The audience reacts with supportive, skeptical, and also hostile questions. The Lectures read like an exciting real-life exchange between persons of various points of view. The usual moral, political, and pseudo-scientific arguments against revisionism are addressed and refuted. This book resembles an entertaining collection of answers to frequently asked questions on the Holocaust. With generous references to a vast bibliography, this easy-to-understand book is the best introduction into this taboo topic for both readers unfamiliar with the topic and for those wanting to know more. 2nd, revised and corrected edition, 500 pages. Format: pb, 6″9″, 151 illustrations, bibliography, index. Published by The Barnes Review (Washington, D.C.) in Oct. 2010. ISBN: 9781591480013 For prices please see retail outlets. In case you decide to download a free PDF file of this book instead of purchasing a printed copy, please consider supporting the author for his efforts and for the injustices he has suffered (he was sentenced to 30 months imprisonment and a fine of 21,000 (some $28,000) for the German edition of this book) by making a donation. Details can be found on his website. Electronic files of some (but not all) of the volumes of the Holocaust Handbooks have been released to the public domain for educational purposes only. Where this is the case, the files can be downloaded above. They may be copied and distributed by third parties free of charge only. No commercial use by third parties is permitted. If copied and distributed, no changes to the book are permitted without the prior written consent of the book’s author(s)/editor(s).

Fair Usage Law

December 25, 2015   Posted in: Holocaust Revisionism  Comments Closed

Ernst Nolte and Holocaust Revisionism – Abbie Conant

Ernst Nolte and Holocaust Revisionism To the gen-mus list: July 10, 2000 Last month we were discussing the women’s orchestra in Auswchwitz and it was suggested that more emphasis should be placed on the “gray areas” of the Holocaust. I think this comment might have seemed strange to some, and so I would like to provide information about the intellectual background here in Germany from which the suggestion -might- have derived. There have also been some recent controversial developments in Germany related to the Holocaust and historical research that might be of interest to historians on this list. In June, one of Germany’s most prestigious literary prizes went to historian, Ernst Nolte, (a Professor at the Free University of Berlin) who has sought to partially justify the Holocaust by asserting it was in essence a riposte to Bolshevism[1]. He received the Konrad Adenauer Prize for literature, causing an uproar that has filled German newspapers with invective and divided one of Germany’s leading historical institutes. The prize is awarded by the Munich-based Deutschland Foundation which is conservative, but had not been considered reactionary or revisionist. Accepting the prize, Mr. Nolte said, ”We should leave behind the view that the opposite of National Socialist goals is always good and right.” He added that because Nazism was the ”strongest of all counter forces” to Bolshevism, a movement with wide Jewish support, Hitler may have had ”rational” reasons for attacking the Jews[2]. _The New York Times_ writes that the timing of the prize is particularly delicate because this is a “period of some intellectual ferment in Europe.” The success of Austrian rightist Jorg Haider in steering his Freedom Party into government has emboldened the right in other regions of Europe. “In Germany and France,” the Times writes, “a conservative reaction is evident against what the French call ‘the angelic left,’ which is accused of imposing a stifling political correctness on debate and of backing a multi-cultural tide that will sweep away the European nation state.” Unease and anger in Germany over the prize has been accentuated by the fact that another prominent historian, Horst Moller, the director of the distinguished Institute for Contemporary History, chose to make the speech honoring Mr. Nolte. Perhaps this intellectual climate might help list members understand why they would be asked to examine the “gray areas” of the Holocaust, a notion that in many respects seems an invitation to revisionism. For those interested, historian Benjamin B. Weber, provides a criticism of Nolte’s writings in an article entitled “Shades of Revisionism: Holocaust Denial and the Conservative Call to Reinterpret German History[3].” Weber suggests that the appeal of Nolte’s writings stems from the desire of some to believe that “the roots of the Holocaust do not lie in German antisemitism, but rather in the Bolshevik revolution,” a view that would “shift the blame from the German people to the communist Soviets.” Most scholars scoff at Nolte’s notion that the revolution of 1917 created a situation in which the German people were locked in a struggle to the death with European Jewry. Weber, however, asks us to imagine the effect Nolte’s ideas could have on young Germans today “who have difficulty accepting that their relatives belonged to a flagrantly criminal society[4].” Nolte’s distinguished reputation and academic credentials help lull young people into thinking the Holocaust was a defensive action. Similar ideas have also shaped US politics. Unfounded concerns about “Jewish Bolshivists” caused anti-Semiticism to influence the “House Un-American Activities Committee” in the USA during the 1950s. Two of the most active McCarthyites, Richard Nixon and Ronald Regan, later became highly influential US Presidents. Perhaps this helps explain why Nolte has a following among the far-right in the USA. In an article entitled “Nazifying the Germans,” Ralph Raico, a rightist Professor of History at Buffalo State College, reiterates and extols Nolte’s work. Raico agrees with Nolte that, “Keeping the Nazi period constantly before our eyes serves the ideological interests of a number of “influential groups” including “Zionists” and “American globalists.” Raico also complains that Hitler is used as a case against Americian isolationism [5]. His views are widely represented in the American far-right. Like many authors, including both Nolte and members of the more moderate-right, Raico feels we are in the “midst of a vast campaign to delegitimize western civilization” (a criticism also often leveled at the “new musicology.”) Racio suggests that, “The obsession with the never-ending guilt of the Germans…advances the ends of those who look forward to the extinction of the nation-state and national identity, especially in the West.” Nolte agrees, and provides an even more specific theory. He asserts that radical feminism joins Third World anti-Occidentalism and multiculturalism to “instrumentalize” the Holocaust for political purposes. He feels these groups place the Holocaust in the context of “various genocides by the predatory and conquering West, so that ‘homo hitlerensis’ ultimately appears as merely a special case of ‘homo occidentalis.'” According to Nolte, the purpose of this leftist portrayal of the West as genocidal is to strike at “the cultural and linguistic homogeneity of the national states, achieved over centuries, and open the gates to a massive immigration,” so that in the end the nations of the West should cease to exist. The trouble with Nolte’s thought seems to be that it trivializes atrocities Western nations have indeed committed. In the mid 1980s, Jrgen Habermas, a professor of social philosophy at the University of Frankfurt, attacked Nolte’s views. A lively public debate evolved in Germany known as the “Historikerstreit” (“The Historian’s Conflict.”) in which Nolte was represented by the conservative _Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung_ and Habermas by the liberal weekly _Die Zeit_. Habermas suggested that Nolte’s revisionism was primarily a political issue stemming from the fact that many Germans born after 1945 are irritated at being held responsible for the crimes of their parents. Habermas criticized the revisionists for attempting to provide Germans with a history that would alleviate their sense of guilt. Rather than providing a more palatable interpretation of the German past, he demanded that historians leave it intact and that Germany face up to the horrors of Nazism. Habermas further suggested that revisionism would ultimately only discredit Germany. Nolte’s writings, however, are widely applauded and represent themes that helped fuel Jorg Haider’s rise to power in Austria. As the _New York Times_ notes, “With Haiderism thriving in neighboring Austria, the ground has become fertile in Germany for a nationalist and right-wing intellectual awaking. It is fed by weariness, even anger, at what is seen as Germany’s eternal victimization for the Holocaust, and irritation at the multi-cultural message from a Red-Green government[6].” In any case, Nolte and other members of the German right question the “intellectual tyranny” of the left and demand it recognize rational motivations for the “gray areas” of the Holocaust. Nolte’s critics, however, feel he and his followers advocate a dangerous and politically motivated historical revisionism. William Osborne 100260.243@compuserve.com (You may forward this post. Please include the endnotes.) [1] For a full report on the award to Nolte and the controversy surrounding it see Roger Cohen, “Hitler Apologist Wins German Honor, and a Storm Breaks Out” _The New York Times_ (June 21, 2000.) A copy is available on the web at [2] ibid. [3] Benjamin B. Weber, “Shades of Revisionism: Holocaust Denial and the Conservative Call to Reinterpret German History” _History Review_ (vol. 6, December 1994.) The journal is published by the University of Vermont. The article is available on the web at [4] ibid. [5] Ralph Raico, “Nazifying the Germans,” July10, 2000 [6] Roger Cohen, “Hitler Apologist Wins German Honor, and a Storm Breaks Out” _The New York Times_ (June 21, 2000.)

Fair Usage Law

December 3, 2015   Posted in: Holocaust Revisionism  Comments Closed

HOLOCAUST REVISIONISM and its Effects 1 (and NUCLEAR …

The problem is communication, the way to communicate. Revisionists assume that people already knows a lot of thing in the right way. They think that they have only to explain or correct some facts, or some evidences, and “voil”. But it doesn’t work very well. Simply the alphabet, the syntax, the vocabulary, the grammar, the language is different. People got a heavy indoctrination. All the paradigms, not only Shoah, but everything surrounding is distorted. Let me say that is not new, and not only for Shoah. The Emperor Nero was the very ancient Hitler, the ancient Satan. (Very much of the Hitler demonization was perfectly copied from the antique Nero demonization propaganda. Fire, flames, extermination, madman, a bit artist, cruel, paranoic, etc…). You know that Nero burned Rome, he murdered ten of thousands of Christians, burned them alive, crucificied them, or teared them to pieces by the lions in the Circus, while he was playing the lyra and singing. All that is a bunch of lies, but the books afterwards were written by historians who were just Christians or the Aristocratic class, strongly enemy of Nero. Among others, Nero made expecially 2 great reforms. One was a monetary reform, the other was a fiscal reform. Both were for the people and against the aristocratic class. Expecially the latter, because Nero took them a great part of their privilege to collect taxes, give permits, concessions, contracts and so on. (Only to understand the importance two small examples: one commercial ship contained at that time up to 10.000 tons of say of wine, grain, oil… The permit to import and deal given by the Aristocratic bureaucracy to a trader gave them some 25% of the earnings. Another example. Roman people didn’t live in the beautiful houses (domus) you have read in the school books. Only 1400 or 1500 owners with their families and slaves lived there. Roman citizens were 1,200,000-1,600,000 and they lived (paying a rent, not as owners) in the “insulae” i.e. six, eight, and often ten-storey-houses, or even 14 storey-houses, like the “Insula felicles”. There was an immense speculation at that time. You can understand the value of the building permits given by the Aristocratics). Even when there was the famous fire in Rome, Nero taxed them and made a requisition of 1/5 of their grain to help the population, the fixed strict rules for the new buildings and so on. You can understand how many enemies he had. After his death (64 A.D.) the demonization began. Every book speaking even a bit objectively was removed. But notwithstanding the heavy propaganda the Romans continued to preserve some memory. For more than 1000 years every 9 June, the day of the death of Nero, a great mass of people brought flowers on the (presumed) Nero mausoleum, ending only when the Pope Pasquale ordered in 1100 A.D. to destroy the grave and to build a chapel. (It subsequently become a famous Church in Rome: “Santa Maria del Popolo”). Every text-book, every newspaper, and then every film or every TV “historic” documentary, and everything in culture was distorted. And not because the truth was unknown. The truth was known. For the Shoah the story is even worse, because the story is linked with the unconscious, because the media are quite heavier, because the films, the fiction, the survivors’ stories are so recent, and because people was scientifically stripped of the capacity of reasoning and trained to images and emotions. So, to conclude, it is not simply a matter of illustrating some facts, it is a matter of values inculcated through emotions and watchwords, and moreover of a different grammar between you and your listener. Your grammar is logic, his grammar is emotions and faith. If you don’t try to throw a bridge and approach his grammar, I think you are wasting your time. Sorry for my usual bad English.

Fair Usage Law

November 24, 2015   Posted in: Holocaust Revisionism  Comments Closed

Why Netanyahu Needs Holocaust Revisionism and Israeli …

HAZEM BADER via Getty Images Originally posted by The Progressive, October 27, 2015 Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s October 20 speech claiming that Hitler had not planned to exterminate Jews until a prominent Palestinian cleric pressured him to do so, while outrageous, is consistent with the longstanding narrative of the right-wing government and its U.S. supporters. As everyone from the German government to leading Israeli historians have noted, the charge that Grand Mufti Haj Amin al-Husseini was responsible for the Holocaust is ludicrous. Not only is there no record of such an exchange between the two, the meeting took place in late November 1941, four months after the “Final Solution” had been formally authorized. By that time, nearly one million Jews–primarily from Poland, Lithuania, Ukraine, Serbia, and Russia–had already been murdered. Netanyahu’s goal in making such extremist remarks, in the immediate term, was to validate his insistence that the recent attacks on Israeli civilians by Palestinians stemmed not from retaliation for the larger number of killings of Palestinian civilians by Israelis, as leading Israeli security analysts have noted, nor from the frustrations over nearly 50 years of Israeli occupation, colonization, and repression. To the Israeli leader, the attacks are simply a result of a centuries-old hatred of the Jews. Regardless of the motivation, the stabbings and shootings of this past month of eight Israelis–including both settlers in the occupied West Bank and within Israel itself–is certainly horrific and can never be justified. However, during this same period, 57 Palestinians, including 13 children and a pregnant woman, have been killed by Israeli police, soldiers, or vigilantes. Some of the Palestinians killed were engaged in stabbings or stabbing attempts, though in a number of cases eyewitnesses insisted otherwise. In one incident, a man engaging in suspicious behavior killed by Israeli police was labeled a “terrorist,” but the government immediately dropped the label as soon as they discovered he was actually an Israeli Jew. While other Palestinians were shot dead while engaging in violent protests, the majority of those killed appear to have not been involved in any violent or threatening activities. Among them was physician, Hebron community leader, and human rights activist Hesham Azzeh, an advocate of nonviolent resistance who had worked with both Israeli and international peace groups. Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch, following the shooting of an HRW investigator by Israeli occupation forces, noted “indiscriminate or deliberate firing on observers and demonstrators who pose no imminent threat violates the international standards that bind Israeli security forces” Meanwhile, in the United States, Hillary Clinton and members of Congress from both parties have gone on record condemning the killing of Israeli civilians by Palestinians, but not the larger number of Palestinian civilians by Israelis. Leading Democrats on Capitol Hill have joined their Republican colleagues in demanding that Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas prevent the ongoing attacks against Israelis, despite the fact that the vast majority of them have been committed by Palestinians living in areas under exclusive Israeli control. Indeed, Israeli intelligence has noted that not only is there no evidence suggesting that President Abbas is inciting such attacks, but that he has directed his security forces to try to prevent any attacks from within territory under their jurisdiction. The larger motivation behind Netanyahu’s ahistorical claims about the Holocaust appears to be part of his long-term strategy of portraying the Palestinian nationalist movement as little more than an effort by irrational fanatics to exterminate the Jews. This is why the rightist prime minister insists he cannot make peace. Indeed, in a speech on Monday regarding the West Bank, he reiterated his insistence that “we need to control all of the territory for the foreseeable future.” Meanwhile, President Abbas, the recognized Palestinian government, the Palestine Liberation Organization, and the ruling Fatah party all remain on record accepting Israel’s right to exist with strict security guarantees on 78% of historic Palestine, but simply demanding an end of the occupation and colonization of the remaining 22% seized by Israel in the 1967 war. It is this kind of moderation which makes it difficult for Israel to continue its refusal to make the necessary compromises for peace. This is why Netanyahu and his American supporters need to blame the violence exclusively on those under occupation, convince the public that Arabs and Muslims simply want the Jews annihilated, and frighten Israelis into rejecting Palestinian offers for peace.

Fair Usage Law

October 28, 2015   Posted in: Holocaust Revisionism  Comments Closed

HOLOCAUSTREVISIONISM – YouTube

Holocaust Revisionists and Historians claim that the genocide of Jews during World War II ~ usually referred to as the Holocaust did not occur at all (seldom) or in the manner or to the extent historically recognized. Key elements of these claims are the rejection of any of the following :: that the German Nazi Government had a policy of deliberately targeting Jews for extermination as a people; that more than six million Jews were systematically killed by the Nazis and their allies; and that genocide was carried out at Concentration Camps using tools of mass murder, such as gas chambers etc etc. An Extensive documentary showing the lengths Zionists went to in order to bring about their goal of achieving the illegal state of Israel. Original Uploader and Website: http://www.youtube.com/user… http://www.onethirdofthehol… Please-View-Holocaust-Revisionism-Playlist-For-Holo-Videos http://www.youtube.com/play… International Red Cross Official Holocaust Total Death Records http://truedemocracyparty.n… More Info http://www.codoh.com http://www.barnesreview.org http://www.vho.org http://www.zundelsite.org http://www.nazigassings.com http://www.ihr.org Original ‘One Third of the Holocaust’ Upload With ‘198.760’ Views Deleted With Channel ‘IMMORTALTRUTHZx’ on 14/11/2012. Show less

Fair Usage Law

October 9, 2015   Posted in: Holocaust Revisionism  Comments Closed

Not a single Jew died in a gas chamber [Holocaust …

Please sign the petition of support: http://petitions.tigweb.org/FSSPX His view is that about 2-300 000 Jews may have perished in the Nazi working camps. – But not one of them died in gas chambers, Richard Williamson argues. “- Anti-Semitism can only be bad if it is against the truth. But if something is true, it cant be bad. I am not interested in the word anti-Semitism.” For a follow up, look at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZRINE… and at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x9BCWW… (“More info ….”). The Crucifixion of Bishop Williamson http://truthisbeauty.wordpress.com/20 ” – As I observe the vilification of Bishop Williamson occurring in the Catholic blogosphere, I cant help but recall the gospel account of the crucifixion of Christ Himself. For with the exception of the Blessed Mother and St. John, the rest of His apostles had abandoned Him, quaking in their boots for fear of the Jews (John 19:38).” I believe in freedom of speech for Bishop Williamson http://revisionistreview.blogspot.com… The John Paul II Theology of Pope Benedict XVI http://revisionistreview.blogspot.com… ‘Holocaust bishop’ told to recant http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/786… For a German translation of the interview: http://globalfire.tv/nj/09de/religion… .An English transcript at http://globalfire.tv/nj/09en/religion… More about Williamson at http://blog.balder.org/?p=600, at http://jackmyers.daylife.com/topic/Ri… and at http://www.tellingfilms.co.uk/gledhil… Bishop Richard Williamson’s own blog “Dinoscopus” at http://dinoscopus.blogspot.com/ ” – Amidst this tremendous media storm stirred up by imprudent remarks of mine on Swedish television, I beg of you to accept, only as is properly respectful, my sincere regrets for having caused to yourself and to the Holy Father so much unnecessary distress and problems.” Bishop [Richard] Willamson’s Letters 1991 – 2003 at http://sspx.ca/Documents/Bishop-Willi… The Society of St. Pius X has forbidden Bishop Williamson from speaking on any historical and political matters: ” – Therefore I prohibit Bishop Williamson until further notice from speaking in public on political or historic questions.” http://www.remnantnewspaper.com/Archi… Priest in Italy defends Holocaust-denier: “- In Thursday’s interview, Abrahamowicz defended the bishop, saying Williamson had not denied the Holocaust but had only questioned the “technical aspect” of the gas chambers.” http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/a… Der Spiegel, no. 4/2009, page 3: – An actual event that occurred near Regensburg (Germany) at a sanctification of deacons in November 2008 at All Saints Day, could damage the already tense relation between Catholics and Jews even more. Monsignore Williamson, who was commissioned by Arch Bishop Marcel Lefebvre, the founder of The St. Pius X brotherhood, to persue with the founders lifework, came to Zeitzkofen where The St. Piux X Church conducts a seminary in a baroque palace. At All Saint’s Day the Swedish convert, Sten Sandmark, was to be consecrated as a new deacon at the seminary. It was because Sandmark’s conversion from the Protestant Church to The St. Pius X Church had caused a scandal in Sweden. Therefore the Stockholm based TV journalist Ali Fegan was present to capture the event for Swedish Television. After the consecration, Fegan interviewed Monsignore Williamson and others in the palaces chapel. In the course of the interview the subject of Nazi crimes came up. The footage shows how Williamson paused for a moment and then said that he does not believe that six million Jews were gassed in gas chambers. On the sudden counter question: “So, there weren’t any gas chambers?”, the bishop replied: “I believe, gas chambers never existed, yes.” In this matter, he said, he sides with the “revisionists” who believe that “two to three hundred thousand Jews in Nazi concentration camps died. But not one of them had been killed by gas in a gas chambers.” Then the clergyman talked much about technical impossibilities, the heights of Chimneys and improper doors because they were untight, but that they were still shown today to “the tourists” at Auschwitz-Birkenau. “If this is not anti-Semitism”, the Swedish interviewer dug deeper, “what is it?” Bishop Williamson: “Anti-Semitism can only be bad if it is against the truth. But if something is true, it cant be bad. I am not interested in the word anti-Semitism.”

Fair Usage Law

October 7, 2015   Posted in: Holocaust Revisionism  Comments Closed

Holocaust Revisionism, Free Speech, and Internet. (1997 …

Quotation Let me start with an account: According to the New York Times of October 3, 1965 there have been.. 170,000 civilians killed; 800,000 maimed by torture; 5,000 burnt alive, disembowelled or beheaded; 100,000 killed or maimed by chemical poisons; 400,000 detained and tortured savagely. One method of torture used by the American troops is partial electrocution or frying as one United States Adviser called itby attaching live wires to male genital organs or the breasts of Vietnamese women prisoners. Already 8,000,000 villagers are living in the 6,000 hamlets so far completed.. with bamboo fences, barbed wire, and armed militiamen. Whats the relevance of that? Well see later. Outline On the principle of telling them what youre going to tell them, this is what Im going to say: First, some comments on Internet, since this is the source of this talk. I should make it clear Im not obsessed by this topic and indeed only became aware of its existence a month or two ago. Many of the things said came as a surprise to me, and Ill flag these during my talk. Ill also supplement Internet with a few publications, of the sort readily available in second-hand bookshops. Then some comments on free speech and the issues surrounding it, including technology. This is apparently a well-worn theme and Ill try not to be too banal. Then Ill survey revisionism as a concept, and home in on holocaust revisionism, looking first at the types of revisionists. Then Ill go into detail as to the personalities involved, first the revisionists, then the anti-revisionists. Ill have to look at the Nuremberg Military Tribunal, and try to summarise the evidence brought by revisionists and by anti-revisionists. Ill end with political and historical comments (some addressed specifically to the left.) The Internet On Internet, opinions vary; Christopher Hitchens said its been tremendously oversold, youll get oligopolies and the same consumerist hogwash; he likes print. John Pilger said look to see who controls the Internet; the American government and multinationals. I ought to point out that, in fact, its quite difficult to use; skilled computer people can store downloaded text on their computers for use later, but unskilled ones find this difficult; in my view, the promotional campaigns of the BBCs Computers Dont Bite type are dangerously misleading; Ive seen adults go into rages of frustration trying to work these things. There are dangers of losing all ones work, and so on. In practice, most users seem to belong to institutionstypically students or employees who offload the costs onto their organisations. Many sites are maintained not by the people whose names appear there, but by associates or friends or whatever. Incidentally youll often be told that the quality of the material is very poor. In my opinion this isnt truethe medium is purely verbal, theres no way of making your points other than through well-chosen words, and the standard is generally not at all bad, though of course much of it is repetitive and rather silly. Incidentally many people dont know theres a subset of Internet called Usenet, consisting of thousands of interest groups, a bit like special-interest magazines. Free Speech On free speech, the amazing thing really is that such an ideology exists at all. You might expect any group having achieved some sort of dominance to oppose free speech, and generally this is true. Roughly speaking, without straining for precision, you might divide a population into well-off & poor, and also into intelligent and not intelligent; this gives four types, of which only two are likely to be interested in free speech; and of these, established people generally cant be expected to favour free speechKing George V said people who write books ought to be shut up. That was his contribution to culture. Many important intellectual changes have therefore only been introduced by the intelligent not-well-off, for this reason; Im thinking for example of Faraday. This is the pragmatic argument for free speech; something useful might come of it. But in practice free speech is something of a dead letterand Ill give this organisation as an example! So far as I know, in its 100 years, nobody at South Place has ever spoken on the financial resources of the Church of England. [Or of course the Talmud, and Jewish issues]. With critics like that, establishments can rest easy. This sort of thing of course isnt anything special; for example, democracy is more of a slogan than a reality; free trade is generally a cover for the expansion of strong economies, and theres an analogy with free speech, which may be a cover for pushing pornography or Hollywood tripe or what not. Many of the theoreticians of free speech are more restrictive than is generally realised; Miltons Areopagitica , at least according to Chomsky, advocates licensing of books rather than anything that would normally be considered free speech. John Stuart Mill would not (e.g.) allow the view that Queen Victoria should be assassinated, even by someone conscientiously convinced that it would be a good thing. So generally free speech is conceived in rather vague terms, and I think its fair to say nobody has come up with a theory to adequately deal with it. As a problematic issue you might take secrecy of banking, which seems more secure even than government, where there are at least 30 or 100 year rules on documents allowed to survive; but banks have no obligation to publish papers (as far as I know). And in practice censors dont take a theoretical line; they just cut out anything that might be tricky. One of the most important determinants of free speech is technological change; for example the Arab world had not one single printing press until the 1880s. In Britain, the Levellers broke up the Stationers Company monopoly, partly because printing was becoming easier. Similarly theres a widespread belief that the Dutch were valuable in the 17th century, as permitting the publication of books banned in Britain and elsewhere. In my view this is probably a mistakeif you consider Dutch printers, they had the capacity to print books, but demand in Dutch of course was limited. So an Englishman with a bag of gold wanting 200 copies of a book on how terrible the Archbishop of Canterbury was would be an attractive proposition. Something similar appears to be the case with Internet; providers of it want to make moneyor, if Ive read the press aright, in most cases, want to lose less of it. Technology is also important because the most up-to-date type looks reliable. About the time of the first world war, Ive read, English people believed newspapers were as reliable as encyclopaedias, and this must have been a factor in promoting the war. Later, radio was the thing, and one finds for example Bernard Shaw, when he wasnt writing in his garden shed, listening to his radio most of the time. This attitude still exists in some elderly people, who imagine the 1 oclock BBC news to be the apex of accurate communication. Revisionism as a Concept Right. Lets look at revisionism as a concept. As far as I know the word originated with Marxism, Bernstein starting the revisionist movement of the German sozialdemokratisch movement. Lenin wrote on this disapprovingly in (or before) 1908. There are no doubt religious revisionists too, considering e.g. whether Jesus Christ ever existed. But by now its extended into very many fields; in history journals Ive found revisionism applied to the Merovingians, Danes, and 19th century Wales. If we consider WW2, we find what we might call left-wing revisionists who point e.g. to Standard Oil of New Jersey, which seems to have supplied Germany with oil through the war, or Opel (the German branch of General Motors) making German armoured cars; I might quote Tony Benn: I think its time we did a bit of reexamination, you know, of the 1930s and got away from the idea that the British government believed in appeasement. They didnt .. appease Hitler. They supported Hitler. They backed Hitler. .. captured German foreign office youll find that when Halifax went to talk to Hitler on behalf of the British government the first thing he did was to congratulate the German chancellor on having destroyed communism in Germany, and acted as a bulwark against it in Europe. And the whole of that 1930s period was a period when western governments were happy to use fascism in order to destroy socialism in all its forms, not just in Russia but in the west as well. … Revisionists also look at the entire basis for war: Robert Blake, the Disraeli biographer, Why Britain Went to War:It would be nice to say that Britain fought for idealsdemocracy, freedom, the rule of law etc. But it would be untrue. Britain fought because government and people believed that its existence as a great imperial power was threatened. In America, Gabriel Kolko was, or should have been, very influential, on the American Empire. Now. Until recently Id more or less ignored what Id thought of as right-wing revisionists. In fact, at least on the Internet, the word revisionism now applies only to holocaust revisionism. For example, theres a Usenet site called alt.revisionism devoted entirely to this topic. However, Ill look at the various distinctive people and groups which you find if you search using the key phrase holocaust revisionism or revisionist. Holocaust Revisionists Beliefs First, for orientation purposes, Ill try to summarise what the revisionists claim in common, the subset of beliefs that more or less unite them. These are actually fairly simple: the claims are that a deliberate extermination policy of Jews didnt exist, that gas chambers are a myth, and that although lots of Jews died, the deaths werent proportionally more than other groups; Czechs, Poles, Ukrainians, Russians, various Baltic peoples; a quarter of all British merchant seamen. Those are the key beliefs, but of course, as you appreciate many other issues get brought in. Many of these issues are very well-established taboos indeed, but, as were in a sort of temple of rationalism, Ill list a few which seem important; (i) that Jews actually are descended from Jews, (ii) that Jews took no special part in the Bolshevik revolution, (iii) that Judaism is a fundamentalist/racist ideology. Thus for example E H Carrs series of books on the Bolshevik Revolution, which came out from the 1950s, has virtually no mention of Jews, despite purporting to be serious history; its rather like discussing former Yugoslavia without mentioning Moslems and Christians. Types of Holocaust Revisionist The next section is the longest; Ill look at the most important revisionists, at least as far as I can judge by their Internet presences. First lets see the motivations. There seem to be about ten categories: Some seem purely anti Semitic, for example posting more or less selective lists of what famous people have said about JewsVoltaire, Henry Ford, George Washington, Mark Twain. Some are anti-Zionist and/or pro-Palestinians. Theres a group called Radio Islam of this sort; Ill talk more about them later. Some are German-extraction Americans; I recall reading in a paper that a third of all Americans in the US claim German ancestry (whatever that means), and such people have a motivation of course for not being anti-German. There also seem to be white Russian or Polish types who consider Bolsheviks were Jewish, some of them Catholics (cf. Hilaire Belloc, the Roman Catholic who wrote his book The Jews in 1922). There are anti-Communists, laying stress on Stalins crimes rather than Hitlers. There are miscellaneous types including for example Protestant fundamentalists, blacks like Louis Farrakhan, and other black Americans, quite a few of whom seem to dislike American Jews, and also whites who think their power is slipping. It may seem strange to think of the 1930s or 1950s as a golden age, but then US cars led the world, the blacks were kept in their place, and so on. Another site is Michael A. Hoffmann II, who looks among other things at neglected aspects of history like white slavery in the US. There are groups who consider fairly taboo second world war issues, such as the connections between Zionism and the Third Reich. Common sense suggests there must be Polish or Hungarian or South African groups and others, but if so theyre not on Internet, or not much. And there are, I presume, genuine truth-seekers, who are interested in truth in history, who might or might not be in some of the previous groups. Ill concentrate on what I take to be people of this sort.

Fair Usage Law

July 12, 2015   Posted in: Holocaust Revisionism  Comments Closed

FAQ about Holocaust Revisionism – VHO

Welcome to our Introduction to Historical Revisionism! In the following text you will find the questions which are most frequently asked about Holocaust Revisionism. You will find our answers by simply clicking your mouse on the question. We also offer a leaflet for free download which summarizes Holocaust Revisionism in a nutshell. This is the perfect flyer for a brief introduction and as a handout to others. Castle Hill wishes you a lot of worthwhile discoveries while browsing through the following page. Questions and Answers If you have further questions, please do not hesitate to ask: question@vho.org The word “Revisionism” is derived from the Latin word “revidere,” which means to view again. The revision of long held theories is entirely normal. It occurs in the natural sciences as well as the social sciences, to which the discipline of history belongs. Science is not a static condition. It is a process, specifically the creating of knowledge by searching for evidence. When ongoing research finds new evidence, or when critical researchers discover mistakes in old explanations, it often happens that old theories have to be changed or even abandoned. By “Revisionism” we mean critically examining established theories and hypotheses in order to test their validity. Scientists need to know when new evidence modifies or contradicts old theories; indeed, one of their main obligations is to test time-honored conceptions and attempt to refute them. Only in an open society in which individuals are free to challenge prevailing theories can we ascertain the validity of these theories, and be confident that we are approaching the truth. For a fuller discussion of this, the reader should acquaint himself with the essay by Dr. C. Nordbruch in the Neuer Zrcher Zeitung of 12 June 1999. Return to Questions Like other scientific concepts, our historical concepts are subject to critical consideration. This is especially true when new evidence is discovered. We must constantly re-examine historical theories, particularly in case: When we are dealing with the distant past, even a small piece of new evidence can profoundly change our views. As for the recent past, the truism “the victor writes the history of the war” still holds; and victor is hardly ever objective. Revision of victor-history is usually not possible until the confrontation between victor and vanquished has ceased to exist; and sometimes these confrontations last for centuries. Since historiography has negligible monetary significance, almost all historical institutes are financed by their respective governments. Free and independent historical institutes are practically nonexistent. In contemporary history, in which individual governments have huge political interests, we must be skeptical toward the official historiography. Another truism reminds us that “he who pays the piper, calls the tune.” These reasons explain why Historical Revisionism is important and why the rulers of the world tend to oppose it. Return to Questions

Fair Usage Law

July 12, 2015   Posted in: Holocaust Revisionism  Comments Closed


Fair Use Disclaimer

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Under the 'fair use' rule of copyright law, an author may make limited use of another author's work without asking permission. Fair use is based on the belief that the public is entitled to freely use portions of copyrighted materials for purposes of commentary and criticism. The fair use privilege is perhaps the most significant limitation on a copyright owner's exclusive rights.

Fair use as described at 17 U.S.C. Section 107:

"Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phono-records or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.

In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include:

  • (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for or nonprofit educational purposes,
  • (2) the nature of the copyrighted work,
  • (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole, and
  • (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work."