|
Why
is Holocaust Revisionism necessary?
For
the non-Jew, the Holocaust is a historical event and not a matter
of religion. As such it is subject to the same kind of research and
scrutiny as other past events, and so our conceptions of the
Holocaust must be subjected to critical investigation. If new
evidence necessitates a change of our view of the Holocaust, then a
change must take place. The same holds true when old assumptions
are proven false. There is nothing reprehensible about questioning the
accuracy of scientific assertions and attempting to deny their
validity. Therefore, it is not reprehensible to approach prevailing
conceptions of the Holocaust with skepticism, as long as it is done
objectively and we have valid reasons to be skeptical.
 Most
people know that the powers existing today, particularly in
the western hemisphere, are opposed to any critical approach
to the Holocaust. In fact, many European nations prosecute
such approaches legally. Here then is an answer to the
question of why Revisionism is important (see Question 2).
Those European governments obviously intend to maintain the present
concept of Holocaust with all the official power at their command.
One reason for this is the massive political and financial interests of
those religious groupings so meticulously described by the US
professor of political science N. G. Finkelstein in his book, The
Holocaust Industry, which we strongly recommend to everyone.
Because of widespread inventions and distortions of the Holocaust,
Prof. Finkelstein laments the fact that there are not more
Holocaust skeptics. And Prof. Raul Hilberg, the leading Holocaust
specialist, repeatedly states that superficiality and inadequate quality
control are the greatest problems in the field of Holocaust research. It
is clear that Holocaust skeptics are badly needed. 3
But
this is not just about the special interests of religious and financial
groupings. We must contend with the entire postwar order, which was
created by the victorious Allies. The very credibility of the
victors’ version of history is at risk. The Holocaust is the central
tile in the mosaic of their version of history. In addition, we
must deal with the political and cultural hegemony of internationalist
and egalitarian circles. For egalitarianists, the conventional Holocaust
image is an extremely useful symbol in their effort to suppress
ethnic, regional and national struggles for independence. It does
not matter whether these struggles take place in Asia, Arabia, Africa,
South America, or Europe. After all, struggles for national
independence assume that nationalism is a good thing. For
egalitarianists, nationalism is evil because once upon a time,
nationalism led to the gas chambers of Auschwitz...
German
politicians know very well that Germany would be subjected to
tremendous pressure if it allowed anything like critical
investigation of the Holocaust. Finally the credulity of all those
is at risk who built their world upon the moralistic foundation of
the ‘Holocaust’ as well as those who face complete moral and social
bankruptcy if they face their doubts. There are profound
psychological and egotistical reasons, which make it impossible for
many intellectuals to entertain doubts about the Holocaust, even to
themselves.
However,
the circumstance of whether one is for or against internationalism and
egalitarianism is irrelevant. So is one’s opinion regarding the
class games people play, or the spiritual orientation of the powerful.
The significant fact is that there are extremely powerful groups,
which are determined to hinder critical consideration of the
Holocaust. Throughout the world, the media heap abuse on those who
express doubt about the orthodox version of the Holocaust. In the German
speaking countries, publicly expressing doubt about the Holocaust is a
political offense punishable by long prison sentences (Section 130
Paragraph 3 of German Penal Code; Section 3h of Austrian Code;
Section 216 bis of Swiss Code.) This alone should be enough
to arouse the suspicions of anyone who has the capacity to think
critically. It should make one ask why the power elite still have
such drastic need of hate propaganda left over from World War II.
The
Austrian Catholic pastor Viktor R. Knirsch has given us some
insightful remarks on this subject:
4
“It
is the right and the duty of everyone who seeks the truth to doubt,
investigate and consider all available evidence. Wherever this doubting
and investigating is forbidden; wherever authorities demand
unquestioning belief – there is evidence of a profane arrogance, which
arouses our suspicions. If those whose contentions are questioned
had truth on their side, they would patiently answer all questions.
Certainly they would not continue to conceal evidence and documents
which pertain to the controversy. If those who demand belief are
lying, however, they will call for a judge. By this ye shall know
them. He who tells the truth is calm and composed, but he who lies
demands worldly justice.”
To
conclude our answer of this question let us consider a slogan of
an advertisement that caused a scandal in Germany in summer 2001.
Shortly before that, the German government had finally decided,
after many years of discussion, to erect a huge Holocaust memorial
in the center of Germany’s capital Berlin.
In
a provocative advertisement to raise funds for this memorial,
which was intended to convince people why this memorial is
important, several prominent German personalities made the
following statements (see picture):
“‘the
holocaust never happened’
There
are still a great many who believe it never happened, and in twenty
years there will be more. Hence, donate for the memorial for the
murdered Jews of Europe.”
The
first phrase in huge letters was meant to be a quote from a
“Holocaust denier,” but since the explanation underneath it was
almost illegibly small and not very clear, the storm of protest that
broke out after the campaign with this ad was started brought it to
an immediate end.
Anyway,
this ad made a prophecy: That there would be even more
‘deniers’ in twenty years than there are already today. There
are good reasons for the premonitions of these German personalities.
Our knowledge of all historical events is increasing with the passage of
time. This happens not in spite of the fact that eyewitnesses are
dying, but rather because of that fact. Participants in historical
events have a personal interest, which tends to distort their
accounts of those events. It will not be possible to overcome this
tendency of subjectivity and distortion until we no longer have to defer
to these persons and their lobby groups, especially when these
groups have great wealth and political influence.
If
the ad’s statement is true that in 20 years still more people will
believe that “the holocaust never happened,” then the reason is to
be found not in these non-believing people themselves, but in our
expanding knowledge about the ‘Holocaust’ and the diminishing
influence of those persons who have non-objective interests
regarding the historiography on the ‘Holocaust.’
It
would be absurd to claim that, just because all the eyewitnesses of mass
executions during the French Revolution have died, the number of
skeptics about these murders would increase more and more. Our knowledge
of historical events does not depend upon living eyewitnesses; on
the contrary, it is most reliable where it can be sustained without
such witnesses. Doubts about a historical event develop only if
there are objective reasons for such doubts.
What
is meant by "Holocaust" or "Shoah"
By
“Holocaust” (the Greek word for sacrifice of a burnt offering) as
well as “Shoah,” which is the Hebrew word for “Catastrophe,” we
mean the near total extermination of a distinct group of persons
through violence. Here we are referring to Jews who lived in areas
controlled by the Third Reich. Loss of citizenship, deportation,
and incarceration with forced labor, things which have always
existed and exist today, should not be included since they do not
result in the physical destruction of these groups. In the mind of
the public the opinion is often created that simply depriving Jews of
civil rights during the Third Reich was part of the Holocaust. But
if this were true, then depriving blacks in South Africa until the end
of last century, Palestinians in Israel and the territories occupied by
it, or the (partial) deprivation of civil right of Blacks and Native
Americans in the USA until the middle of the 20th century would
also have to be described as part of a Holocaust.
The
common historical image of the Holocaust against the Jews
is postulated on the following specific points:
1.
An intention on the part of the National Socialist government to
physically exterminate Jews;
2.
An actual plan of the National Socialist government to physically
exterminate the Jews;
3.
A governmental agency and a budget to carry out this plan;
4.
Technically refined methods of mass killing to achieve this goal,
whereby homicidal gas chambers as well as mass shootings behind
the Russian front would play a major role;
5.
Techniques for disposing of millions of bodies; that is, crematories
or pyres with adequate capacity and fuel.
Such
allegations of mass murder in fast acting homicidal gas chambers
followed by disposal of the bodies in adjoining crematoriums, that is,
expertly planned and efficiently functioning assembly lines for
homicide, are described as having been “unique” in human
history. They distinguish the Holocaust from all atrocities that
happened heretofore. What
does Holocaust Revisionism claim
First
of all, because of false representations by the media, it is
necessary that we first clarify what Holocaust Revisionism does
not maintain:
*it
does not deny that Jews were persecuted under the Third Reich;
*it
does not deny that Jews were deprived of civil rights;
*it
does not deny that Jews were deported;
*it
does not deny the existence of Jewish ghettos;
*it
does not deny the existence of concentration camps;
*it
does not deny the existence of crematoriums in concentration camps;
*it
does not deny that Jews died for a great number of reasons;
*it
does not deny that other minorities were also persecuted, such as
gypsies, Jehovah’s Witnesses, homosexuals, and political
dissenters;
*and
finally, it does not deny that all the above mentioned things were
unjust.
None
of these crimes of the National Socialist regime are doubted by
Holocaust revisionists. In the view of the Revisionists, however, all
these injustices have nothing to do with the Holocaust, which is
defined as planned and organized mass murder, carried out
specifically in homicidal gas chambers (see Question 4).
Holocaust
revisionists believes the following to be correct:
5
1.
There
was no National Socialist order for the physical extermination of Jews; 6
2.
Likewise, there was no National Socialist plan for physical
extermination of Jews;
3.
There
was no German organization and no budget for carrying out the alleged
extermination plan. Consider the statement by the world-renowned
Holocaust researcher Prof. Raul Hilberg: 7
»But
what began in 1941 was a process of destruction not planned in
advance, not organized centrally by any agency. There was no
blueprint and there was no budget for destructive measures [of the
Juden]. They [the measures] were taken step by step. Thus came about not
so much a plan being carried out but an incredible meeting of
minds, a consensus mind-reading by a far-flung [German] bureaucracy.«;
4.
In detailed investigations of former German concentration camps,
expert researchers have established: The internment camps had no
sophisticated methods for mass murder, in particular no homicidal gas
chambers. 8
Furthermore, the reports of mass shootings behind the German-Russian
front were greatly exaggerated and taken out of context; 9
5.
There were neither adequate industrial facilities nor sufficient fuel to
cremate such a huge number of corpses. In fact, the capacity of the
crematories was barely sufficient to cremate the bodies of those
who died from starvation and epidemics. 10
6.
There is no documentation for the existence of homicidal gas
chambers, 11 and no material traces of alleged mass murders.
12 All ‘proof’ relies on eyewitness accounts only, whose
unreliability is widely acknowledged. 13
7.
Despite massive observation by spies and resistance groups in areas
in the near vicinity of the German concentration camps, all of
Germany’s wartime enemies conducted themselves as if no exterminations
of Jews were taking place. The charges of genocide were not raised
until after Germany’s defeat, when there was no German government
to dispute them. 14
8.
Statistical investigations of living Jews worldwide show clearly
that the losses of this ethnic group during the Second World War were
nowhere near six million. The exact number is probably well under
half a million. 15
What
about pictures of heaps of dead bodies in the camps?
Photo
of typhus victims in a mass grave in Bergen-Belsen concentration camp,
taken by British troops.
Here
is a photograph of victims of the typhus epidemic in a mass grave
on the concentration camp in Bergen-Belsen, taken by the British
Army. It is typical of a large number of such photos often shown on TV
Holocaust documentaries either without commentary or else with
allegations that the dead are victims of the Holocaust. In fact, it
is a photograph of victims of an epidemic which occurred at war’s end.
The cause of death is evident from the condition of the corpses. If they
had been gassed they would not be emaciated and if they had died of
starvation they would have swollen joints and stomachs. Any medical
professional will see at first glance that these people died of typhus.
All
photographs of heaps of corpses were taken in western camps around
the end of the war, such as Dachau, BergenBelsen, and Buchenwald, where
historians now agree no mass murders took place. 16 Significantly,
there are no such photographs taken at the camps in which mass murder is
alleged to have occurred (Auschwitz, Treblinka, Belzec, Sobibor,
Chełmno, Majdanek.) These eastern camps were all in areas which came
under Soviet control at war’s end. It is very telling that the Soviets
released no pictures of mass graves or heaps of corpses and allowed
no journalists, medical professionals, or other experts to examine
the camps. Since the end of the 1980s, Revisionists have been
investigating these sites for evidence of mass murder, but the
officials have obstructed their efforts by all possible means.
In
the absence of authentic photographs documenting mass murder, it
frequently happens that photographs of those who died in the
western camps at war’s end of malnutrition and typhus are presented as
evidence of deliberate mass murder. To be sure, the hellish
conditions in the western camps at war’s end convinced many
Allied observers that mass murder had taken place, as initial
reports indicate. In reality, these conditions resulted from a situation
for which the German government was not solely responsible. Toward the
end of the war, Himmler illogically ordered the evacuation of the
eastern camps as the Red Army approached, which led to hopeless overcrowding
in the western camps. By that time, Allied bombing had completely
destroyed the German infrastructure, making it impossible to supply the
camps with food, medicines, and sanitation supplies.
Misunderstandings about the causes of the massive die-off continue
to this day, especially among Americans.
The
respected leftist historian Norbert Frei has given the following reason
for misinterpretation, (from Vierteljahrshefte für
Zeitgeschichte 35 (1987) page 400):
“The
shock of these discoveries [of mountains of corpses] often led to
false conclusions which turned out to be enduring.”
There
is no denying that a government which imprisons people in camps is
responsible for them and so the unjustly imprisoned were therefore
victims of the Third Reich, even if they died “only” of
disease. However, one should not overlook the fact that by the
war’s end, mountains of corpses had become commonplace throughout
Germany. In German cities there were 600,000 victims of Allied
terror bombings. Millions more died of starvation and disease,
which continued rampant through 1949. In Eastern Germany and
Czechoslovakia, three million Germans were murdered by Serbs,
Czechs, Poles, and Russians in the course of history’s bloodiest
ethnic cleansing. In the POW camps of the western Allies, a
million young German men died and millions more vegetated. Hundreds of
thousands more were shipped to the labor camps of the Soviet GULag never
to be seen again. But the media show only one variety of corpse piles,
those in the concentration camps. We should all ask ourselves why
this is so.
Should
the dignity and respect, which we owe the victims of atrocities,
depend on their nationality?
What
difference does it make whether the victims died of typhus or in gas
chambers?
From
the point of view of each victim and its personal suffering there is no
difference. One could even make the point that it would be
preferable to die quickly from poison than to die slowly from an
epidemic disease. However, in the present discussion we are not
focusing on the intensity of suffering of the victims, which no one
questions.
Here
we are concerned with the historical accuracy of certain allegations and
the moral guilt of the so-called German “nation of
perpetrators” as well as the consequences which resulted from these
allegations. Considered from the point of view of the historian as
well as the perpetrators, there is a tremendous difference between being
victims of raging epidemics and victims of planned industrial mass
murder in chemical slaughterhouses designed specifically for
homicide. Epidemics, starvation, and other catastrophes resulting
from poor treatment, political mistakes, and military defeats are
recurrent in the history of mankind.
Here
we are concerned with the historical and moral uniqueness of industrial
mass annihilation of a specific group of the population. The entire
German nation has been held responsible for this unique crime, not
just individual perpetrators. This is the source of today’s
negative treatment of the Germans (“collective responsibility” and
“hereditary guilt”). It is also the source of the privileged
treatment of the actual or alleged victims of genocide. We strongly
suggest you read what Prof. Finkelstein’s has to say on this
subject in his The Holocaust Industry).
Does
it really matter how many Jews died during the Third Reich, since even
1,000 would have been too many?
Doubtless
it is correct that even one is one too many and really one must go
even farther than that: even those measures of Third Reich
persecution which did not result in outright deaths were in every
respect unacceptable. But this is not a valid argument against the
statistical investigation of the ‘whether’ and ‘how’ of the
destruction of the Jews, and for three reasons.
First,
this objection does not satisfy simply for the reason that it is
precisely the number of victims that has been considered sacrosanct for
decades. If the number of victims did not matter, it would not be
necessary to protect it as a social and even criminal taboo.
Evidently there really is more to the six million figure than merely the
fact that it includes a great many individual fates: what is at
stake is a symbol not to be easily relinquished, since justified doubts
about the number might quickly lead to further undesirable
skepticism about further subsections of the Holocaust complex.
While not wishing to deny the victims the tragedy of their
individual fates in any way, science must nevertheless insist that
numbers must always be open to discussion. It is downright
irrational that those, on the one hand, who doubt the six-million figure
are socially persecuted or even subjected to criminal litigation while
society and the justice system, on the other hand, react to valid
arguments against this selfsame six-million figure by suddenly declaring
this figure to be irrelevant and insisting instead on the dignity
of even the very first victim. Is the six-million figure a standard
deserving of protection by criminal law, or is it irrelevant? It cannot
be both at once.
Secondly
– and this is the most important argument – the ethically
correct evaluation that even one victim would be too many must not be a
pretext for prohibiting scientific research. This is intolerable
for the simple reason that science must always be allowed to find
precise answers. What would we think of an official who demanded
that a physicist not be allowed to determine the exact value of his
stress experiment, because even a small value would be bad enough?
A physicist subjected to such an absurd demand would quickly arrive at
incorrect results and would be a threat to any company that hired him.
The same holds true for the historian. If the historian is
forbidden to conduct critical investigations because they might be
considered morally untenable, then we have to assume that the results of
such skewed historiography are unreliable. And since our knowledge
of contemporary history exerts a direct influence on politics, our
public policies are mistaken and unreliable as well. It is the key
function and responsibility of every branch of science to provide
accurate figures and values. The principles which hold true for
engineering, physics, and chemistry can not suddenly be abandoned
in historiography for political reasons – unless one is
intellectually prepared to retreat deep into the darkest middle
ages.
Thirdly,
and more importantly, the morally correct view that even one
victim is one too many cannot on principle be a barrier to the
scientific investigation of a crime which is generally called so
morally reprehensible as to be unique and unparalleled in the history of
mankind. An allegedly uniquely reprehensible crime must be open to a
procedure that is standard for any other crime as well, namely that
it is - and must be - investigated in detail. I would go even further:
anyone who postulates a crime to be unique must be prepared for an
uniquely thorough investigation of the alleged crime before its
uniqueness is accepted as fact. If a person or group blocks
investigation of an allegedly unique crime on grounds of moral outrage, then
that person or group is guilty of a unique crime itself. This unique
crime consists of first denying defense against preposterous
allegations, then disallowing criticism of such tyrannical methods
on a pretext of unusual guilt. This was the precise fate of Germany
following World War II, with the result that Germans were first
brutalized, then slandered and denied opportunity to defend themselves.
The treatment of vanquished Germany by the victorious Allies has been
truly unique in modern times since the same Allies otherwise allow
even the most notorious murderers opportunity to defend themselves in
court.
Whatever
the circumstances, don't Jewish victims deserve respect and
compensation?
Everyone
who is treated unjustly is entitled to reparations and every victim of
crime deserves respect commensurate with human dignity. Revisionism
is concerned solely with determination of objective historical facts and
has no desire to deny either respect or restitution to anyone who has
suffered injustice. In case the evidence shows that a particular
historical event did not have anywhere near as many victims as was
previously believed, this is simply a historical determination, which
has no effect on the fate of anyone. Objective evidence could even
be of assistance to newly discovered victims.
Since
the end of World War II, Germany has paid well over 50,000,000,000
(fifty billion) dollars in reparations to Jewish individuals and
institutions. 17 In the course of these reparations, over five
and a half million applications by Holocaust survivors have been
processed. Obviously, the number of survivors is very large. Since
the German obligation has no statute of limitations, demands for
reparation have been uninterrupted and have even escalated in
recent years. However, we are not addressing the question of whether
those who are demanding still more money are entitled to it, after
fifty-five years. Much more important is the question of why the present
day German taxpayer should pay these sums. 99.9% of all German
taxpayers today are sixty-five years or younger and thus were at
most small children when World War II ended. Let us direct a
somewhat provocative question to you, dear reader:
How
many Jews have you murdered in your lifetime, how many foreigners
have you enslaved, how many members of minorities have you persecuted?
It
is an absurd question; of course, because the answer is always
“none” (at least I hope so). Why then should German taxpayers
contribute billions upon billions in reparations? Why are they
condemned to eternal extortion, penance, and humility? Does anyone
really wonder why taxes and unemployment in Germany are constantly
rising?
Perhaps
you remember a basic Christian principle, which is the law in every
constitutional state: accountability does not extend to our relatives;
there is no such thing as hereditary guilt! In Germany, this
principle is violated. In case of Germany, someone is cashing in on
the alleged guilt of German parents, grandparents,
great-grandparents.
In
passing, wouldn’t it be interesting to know when the millions of
Germans who were exploited as slaves by Frenchmen, Dutchmen,
Englishmen, Belgians, Yugoslavs, Poles, Danes, Russians, Czechs,
for years and even decades after the end of WWII, will finally be
allowed to claim reparations? When will the 12 million eastern
German victims of ethnic cleansing and the survivors of the three
million who were murdered in the process, the six hundred thousand
victims of Allied terror bombings, the five million who died of
starvation under Allied blockade and de-industrialization and
Eisenhower’s withholding of food to them, be given proper restitution?
18
Do
not all victims of injustice deserve the same respect and reparations?
Or is it the case that some are more equal than others?
Who
are the Holocaust Revisionists?
Holocaust
Revisionists are not a homogenous group.
Our
numbers include Jews (Josef G. Burg, Roger-Guy Dommergue, David
Cole, Stephen Hayward); Christians (Germar Rudolf, Michael A. Hoffman,
Robert Countess); Muslims (Ibrahim Alloush, Ahmed Rami) and
Atheists (Bradley Smith, Robert Faurisson).
Paul
Rassinier, a professor of geography and history, was a fighter of
the French Resistance who spent many years in German concentration
camps. He disputed the misrepresentations of fellow inmates E.
Kogon and others and thereby became the founder of Holocaust
Revisionism.
Some
Revisionists suffered persecution by the National Socialist regime as
well as internment in concentration camps (Paul Rassinier, Josef G.
Burg). Others are Army veterans of World War II, from both the
German and Allied armies (Werner Rademacher, Wilhelm Stäglich,
Douglas Collins.) Some Revisionists are professors (Prof. Robert
Faurisson, Prof. Arthur R. Butz, Prof. Christian Lindtner, Prof.
Costas Zaverdinos) and some have Ph.D degrees (Dr. Wilhelm Stäglich,
Dr. Robert Countess, Dr. Stephen Hayward, Dr. Herbert Tiedemann). Some
have degrees in Chemistry, Physics, or Engineering (Michael Gärtner,
Germar Rudolf, Arnulf Neumaier, Friedrich Berg), others are Historians
(Mark Weber, Robert Countess, Carlo Mattogno), or teachers in other
fields, such as Jürgen Graf. The ranks of Holocaust
Revisionists include Communists and Socialists (Paul Rassinier,
Roger Garaudy), moderate Leftists (Pierre Guillaume, Serge Thion),
Liberals (Andrew Allen, David Cole, Bradley Smith, Richard Widmann),
Conservatives (Germar Rudolf, Carlo Mattogno, Werner Rademacher),
Rightists (Udo Walendy, Mark Weber) and National Socialists (Ernst Zündel).
Since the author does not consider it important to classify revisionists
according to political orientation, he can not vouch for the
correctness of these designations.
Included
also are Frenchmen (Robert Faurisson, Pierre Guillaume, Roger Garaudy,
Paul Rassinier, Vincent Reynouard, Jean Plantin), Americans
(Bradley Smith, Mark Weber, Arthur Butz, Richard Widmann, Fredrick
Leuchter), Germans (Germar Rudolf, Werner Rademacher, Michael Gärtner,
Arnulf Neumaier, Wilhelm Stäglich), Swiss (Jürgen Graf, Arthur
Vogt), Italians (Carlo Mattogno), Spaniards (Enrique Aynat),
Jordanians (Ibrahim Alloush), Moroccans (Ahmed Rami),
Swedes, Danes, Britons, Poles, and Russians, to name just a few. 19
What
do Holocaust Revisionists want?
Since
the Revisionists comprise such a heterogeneous group, it is
impossible to state what ‘the’ revisionists hope to accomplish.
Obviously, any cliché about revisionists must therefore be false
and misleading. However, revisionists do have one thing in common:
the determination to demonstrate the correctness of their views on the
Holocaust and to convince others. Revisionists would probably
quarrel endlessly about everything else, particularly if they would
try to seek a common political denominator. Thus it is false and
misleading to ascribe a uniform political agenda to them. The political
views of Revisionists are indeed varied and different.
In
contrast, the governments and media of most western societies publicize
the cliché that all Revisionists are right wing extremists who are
attempting to rehabilitate the National Socialist regime in order to
usher in a new authoritarian government of the right. This may be true
for Revisionists of the extreme right wing, but they are a small
minority within Revisionist ranks.
Perhaps
a few prominent examples will illustrate the political variety of
Revisionist opinion:
Paul
Rassinier:
what would motivate a French Communist who was interned in a German
concentration camp on account of his activities in the Resistance,
to rehabilitate National Socialism in Germany?
Josef
G. Burg:
What would motivate a Jew who suffered under the occupation of both
the Germans and Russians during the Second World War?
David
Cole: What
would motivate a liberal young American of the Jewish faith?
Fredrick
Leuchter:
What would motivate an entirely nonpolitical American expert in the
technology of gas execution chambers?
Pierre
Guillaume, Serge Thion:
What would motivate leftanarchist Frenchmen to rehabilitate National
Socialism in Germany.
Roger
Garaudy: What
would motivate a longtime prominent French Communist?
Bradley
Smith, Richard Widmann:
what would motivate liberal Americans?
Vincent
Reynouard, Jean Plantin, Germar Rudolf:
young liberal and conservative European professionals, born in the mid-60s.
What would motivate them to rehabilitate National Socialism?
Does
it really matter what a Revisionist is trying to achieve with his
political or other ideas? Let’s quote Germar Rudolf on this
point: 20
“To
everyone who has ever suspected that revisionists are motivated by
a desire to whitewash National Socialism, or restore the
acceptability of right-wing political systems, or assist in a
breakthrough of Nationalism, I would like to say the following:
While
researching historical events, our highest goal must be at all
times to discover how it actually was – as the 19th century
German historian Leopold Ranke maintained. Historians should not
place research in the service of making criminal accusations against,
for example, Genghis Khan and the Mongol hordes, nor to whitewash
any of their wrong-doings. Anybody insisting that research be
barred from exonerating Genghis Khan of criminal accusations would
be the object of ridicule and would be subject to the suspicion
that he was, in fact, acting out of political motives. If this
were not so, why would anyone insist that our historical view of Genghis
Khan forever be defined solely by Khan’s victims and enemies?
The
same reasoning applies to Hitler and the Third Reich. Both
revisionists and their adversaries are entitled to their political
views. The accusation that revisionists are only interested in
exonerating National Socialism and that such an effort is
reprehensible or even criminal, is a boomerang: This accusation
has as a prerequisite that it is deemed unacceptable to partially
exonerate National Socialism historically, and by so doing, always also
morally. But by declaring any hypothetical exoneration based on possible
facts as unacceptable, one admits openly not to be interested in
the quest for the truth, but in incriminating National Socialism
historically and morally under any circumstances and at all costs.
And the motivation behind this can only be political. Hence, those
accusing revisionists to misuse their research for political ends
have themselves been proven guilty of exactly this offense. It is
therefore not necessarily the revisionists who are guided by political
motives – though quite a few of them certainly are – but with
absolute certainty all those who accuse others of attempting to
somehow historically exonerate a political system which has long since
disappeared.
As
a consequence, our research must never be concerned with the
possible ‘moral’ spin-off effects of our findings in relation
to politicians or regimes of the past, but solely with the facts.
Anyone who argues the opposite does not understand scientific research
and should not presume to condemn others on the basis of authentic
research.”
Is
Holocaust Revisionism illegal?
In
the United States, it is covered by the First Amendment, like every
peaceful, scholarly speech, which means that it is perfectly legal
to voice, write, and publish revisionist views. Things are quite
different, however, when we turn to Canada, Australia, or even several
countries in Europe.
In
Australia and Canada, everything that is offending to the Jewish
community will be prosecuted by their so-called “Human Rights
Commission”, a body which exists in parallel to the legal system
and which can order the confiscation of publications, the payment of
fines, and the forced declaration of apologies by the
‘perpetrators.’ Though these commissions are not part of the
regular legal system, disobeying them would by itself be a crime, which
in turn would lead to criminal charges by the legal systems of
Canada and Australia. Although Holocaust Revisionism does not
address anything about Jews per se, all Jewish communities feel
heavily offended by it, because Revisionism directly or indirectly comes
to the conclusion that several Jewish personalities were not always
truthful when testifying about their experiences in World War II. Of
course, it would be surprising if Jews were to be the only
identifiable group of humans who never lie, distort, and
exaggerate, but apparently leading Jewish representative feel that
nobody should ever be allowed to claim that certain Jews were
dishonest about the Holocaust.
In
several European countries, Holocaust Revisionism is considered to
be a serious crime. In France, people can be sent to jail for up
the a year; in Switzerland up to three years; in Germany – as in
Israel – for five years; in Austria, a prison term up to 10
years is possible.
However,
if we look into the legal situation, we must insist that theoretically,
Holocaust Revisionism should be perfectly legal in all these
countries. This is so because all these nations signed the United
Nations Declaration of Human Rights, which makes these Human Rights
binding on all these nations. Freedom of speech can be limited only in
cases of insult or incitement to criminal acts, but freedom of
scientific research and peaceful speech can never be limited –
theoretically. For this reason, a recent comprehensive German
doctoral dissertation on the Punishment of the Auschwitz Lie
came to the conclusion that repressing Holocaust Revisionism is a
violation of basic human rights.
21
In
practical terms, however, the situation is quite different in Europe.
As a matter of fact, the answer must be “yes;” Holocaust Revision is
indeed illegal in many countries in Europe. Since the middle of
the 1980s, and particularly since 1995, Holocaust Revisionists
have been punished with large fines and prison terms for no other
reason than disputing the official version of the Holocaust, both orally
and in literature. The courts and the media join forces to slander
nonconforming critics and scientists as “Auschwitz Deniers” or
“Holocaust Deniers.” (See reports in the periodical The
Revisionist). 22
Let
us examine Germany as the most powerful persecuting nation. The
basis for official repression in Germany is Paragraph 130 of the German
Penal Code, which flagrantly violates both the United Nations
Declaration of Human Rights and Article V of the German Constitution.
Under Article 3 of Paragraph 130, denial of National Socialist mass
murder is punishable with up to five years imprisonment and
“denying” is defined as “insinuating untruth in view of
better knowledge.” The Penal Code thus implies that everyone is
convinced of the truth of the official concept of history; and so
anyone who might express doubts or a contrary opinion is
intentionally lying with criminal intent, or that s/he is insane. It is
also a punishable offense – even for defense lawyers! – to
present any evidence before German courts of law, which would cast
doubt on the official version of Holocaust. O brave new world that
hath such laws!
It
is not Holocaust Revisionism that is unlawful; it is the procedure
of the German courts. Unfortunately, the courts have the power. A
similar situation prevails in Austria, Switzerland, and to a
certain degree also in France.
For
over ten years now, the German government has been busily burning
books again, primarily revisionist books. In addition, around ten to
fifteen thousand Germans are being prosecuted for peaceful ‘thought
crimes’ each and every year! 23
A
climax of Germany’s witch-hunt against ‘thought criminals’ was
reached in 2001, when a German public prosecutor rejected the
criminal complaint of a conservative activist who had been
slandered as a “Nazi” by certain media. As a reason not to
allow this complaint, this prosecutor stated that the German public
would consider everybody on the political right to be a
“Nazi,” whether they are conservatives, patriots, rightwingers,
radicals, extremists, fascists, or National Socialist. Since
“Nazi” had become a collective term for everyone on the right,
nobody could be insulted by such a designation as long as he
indeed belongs to any group considered to be right-wing in any
regard (see document on previous page). That means that everybody
who is politically on the right is a “Nazi” by definition of the
German authorities. One is tempted to support the repression of
neo-Nazis, who are depicted in the media as brutal and disgusting.
However, you must consider this: whoever blithely agrees that
neo-Nazis should be prosecuted solely on account of their deviant
opinion, should not complain if he is himself slandered as
neo-Nazi and persecuted because a neighbor denounces him for
waving a national banner or singing the national anthem. Because that is
exactly what is happening in Germany: Those who express plain
normal patriotic feelings, as it is quite common and considered normal
in the U.S., are considered to be neo-Nazis in Germany – so far
to the left has the political spectrum drifted there.
24 Everybody has the duty to protest the persecution of unconventional
thinkers. This is true not only if persecution comes from a
dictatorship, but also if it emanates from a constitutional democracy!
Where
can I learn more about Holocaust Revisionism?
The
best, fastest, cheapest place for this is the Internet and, especially
for English speakers, the websites www.codoh.com,
www.ihr.org, as well as www.vho.org.
If your service provider blocks these pages (obvious proof of
censorship), you can circumvent Big Brother with help of the cost-free
service provided by www.anonymizer.com. Anonymizer makes it
impossible for your service provider to recognize the content of
what you download, so it cannot censor it.
On
www.vho.org, practically the entire
revisionist body of literature is at your disposal, either directly
or through links to other websites. On every page of website
www.vho.org, there is a tab called “Index” on the menu, through
which you will find name, language, and subject indices.
As
introductory writings, we recommend:
*Jürgen
Graf, The Giant With Feet of Clay
25
*G.
Rudolf, Jürgen Graf, Lectures on the Holocaust
26
For
the more advanced reader we recommend:
–
Germar
Rudolf,
Dissecting the Holocaust 27
–
Further issues of the Holocaust Handbooks Series 28
For
readers who are interested in regularly appearing periodicals containing
updates on Revisionism, we recommend:
*The
Revisionist -English
29
*The
Journal of Historical Review
- English 30
*The
Barnes Review
31
*Vierteljahreshefte
für freie Geschichts-forschung -German 32
The
bold emphasized publications can be purchased from us, compare the
information given in the next chapter as well as on the back cover
of this brochure.
You
can also access the Internet to find more websites with plenty of
information on Revisionism as well as websites hostile toward
revisionism, for example by going to our links page atwww.vho.org/Links.html.
Notes
1
Cf. Neue Zürcher Zeitung,
June 6, 1999 www.vho.org/D/Beitraege/Nordbruch.htm.
2 Cf.
z.B. J. Nugent, »Who Were the Original Native Americans?«. The Barnes
Review, 5(3) (1999), pp. 4-38.; also V. Steen-McIntyre, ibid., 4(1) 1998,
S. 31-36
3 So in an interview with the Berlin daily newspaper Berliner
Zeitung, Sept. 4, 2000www.vho.org/D/Beitraege/HilbergBZ040900.html;
and in a private letter, J. Graf, The Giant With Feet of Clay, Theses
& Dissertations Press, Capshaw, AL, 2001, p. 118
www.vho.org/GB/Books/Giant/Chapter10.pdf
4 In a letter to Gerd Honsik, see Honsik, Freispruch
für Hitler?, Burgendlandischer Kulturverband, Wien 1988, p. 7
www.vho.org/D/ffh/Vorspann.html.
5 The
following endnotes about these questions give Internet addresses of books
and magazine articles addressing these topics. Most of them can be
purchased from Castle Hill Publishers, see the back cover of this
brochure.
6www.codoh.com/incon/inconorders.html
7www.ihr.org/jhr/v18/v18n1p15_Faurisson.html
8www.vho.org/GB/Books/trr;
www.vho.org/GB/Books/ccm;
www.vho.org/GB/Books/ccs;
www.vho.org/GB/Books/fndieselgc.html;
9www.vho.org/GB/Books/dth/fndbabiyar.html
; www.vho.org/tr/2003/3
article
by Rudolf/Schroeder.
10www.vho.org/GB/Books/dth/fndcrema.html;
www.vho.org/GB/Books/dth/fndtreb.html
11www.vho.org/GB/Books/trr/5.html
12 See notes 8-10;
www.vho.org/VffG/2000/1/Krege62-64.html;www.airphoto.com;
www.vho.org/GB/Books/dth/fndaerial.html
13www.vho.org/GB/Books/dth/fndwitness.html; www.vho.org/GB/Books/dth/fndvalue.html; www.vho.org/D/atuadh/index.html
14www.vho.org/GB/Journals/JHR/3/4/Butz371-405.html
15www.vho.org/D/da/index.html;
http://www.vho.org/GB/Books/dth/fndstats.html
16 Cf. M. Weber ““Extermination’ Camp Propaganda
Myths”, Dissecting the
Holocaust, Theses & Dissertations Press, Capshaw, AL, 2000, pp.
285-309
www.vho.org/GB/Books/dth/fndWeber.html;
J. Graf, “National Socialist Concentration Camps: Legend and
Reality”, ibid., 2nd ed., Chicago, IL, 2003, pp. 283-309
www.vho.org/GB/Books/dth/fndWeber.html
17www.who.org/GB/Journals/JHR/8/2/Weber243250.html; www.kas.de/publikationen/2002/922_dokument.html;
www.bundesfinanzministerium.de/Anlage8392/Statistiken.pdf
18 Cf. the books by Canadian researcher James Bacque Other
Losses and Crimes and Mercy.
19 Most
articles of revisionist authors are available online, seewww.vho.org/i/a.html
20 The Rudolf
Report, T&DP, Chicago, IL 2003,pp. 37f.;www.vho.org/GB/Books/trr/3.html#3.2.
21Thomas
Wandres, Die Strafbarkeit des
Auschwitz-Leugnens, Duncker & Humblot, Berlin 2000
www.vho.org/VffG/2001/1/Rudolf100-112.html.
22www.vho.org/tr;www.vho.org/News/GB
23www.vho.org/censor/D.html#GB
24 Cf. G. Rudolf, “Discovering Absurdistan”, The
Revisionist 1(2) (2003), pp. 203-219
www.vho.org/tr/2003/2/Rudolf203-219-html.
25www.vho.org/GB/Books/Giant
26 In preparation, will appear in 2004; www.vho.org/GB/Books/loth
27www.vho.org/GB/Books/dth
28 So far seven books: Dissecting
the Holocaust; The Rudolf Report; Giant With Feet of Clay;
Concentration Camp Stutthof; Concentration Camp Majdanek; Treblinka;
Lectures on the Holocaust; The First Holocaust; see www.tadp.org/s/e1.html
29www.vho.org/tr
30www.ihr.org
31www.barnesreview.org
32www.vho.org/VffG
33 www.vho.org/Intro/GB/Flyer.html
|
