Germar Rudolf: Introduction to Historical Revisionism
Promotion Poster for Holocaust Memorial in Berlin: “The Holocaust never happened”.
"The Holocaust never happened". More and more people say this. In 20 years, almost everybody will. Do you want to know why? The media report about the Holocaust almost on a daily basis, so that many get annoyed by it. This happens in order to suffocate any doubt at the outset. Do you know what these doubts are? Do you as well belong to the growing group of people who longer want to be patronized, but who want to judge for themselves? If you answered at least one of these questions with Yes, then you should read this brochure!
What is Revisionism?
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 timehonored 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. 1
Why is Historical Revisionism important?
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:
1. We are dealing with events, which occurred in the far distant past. In this case our problem is that we have very little evidence on which to base our theories.
2. We are dealing with events, which occurred in the recent past. In this case, our problem is that we must contend with political influence, which derives from these events.
When we are dealing with the distant past, even a small piece of new evidence can profoundly change our views. For example, historians are now in the process of revising the traditional assumption that Europeans discovered America just five centuries ago. Recent archeological discoveries show not only that the Vikings reached America in the Tenth Century, but humans with European characteristics were living on the American continent ten thousand years ago. 2 As for the recent past, the truism ‘the victor writes the history of the war’ still holds; and a 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 ‘whoever pays the fiddler, calls the tune.’ These reasons explain why Historical Revisionism is important and why the rulers of the world tend to oppose it.
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, CheÅ‚mno, 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.
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
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.
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.
12 See notes 8-10;
13www.vho.org/GB/Books/dth/fndwitness.html; www.vho.org/GB/Books/dth/fndvalue.html; www.vho.org/D/atuadh/index.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
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
26 In preparation, will appear in 2004; www.vho.org/GB/Books/loth
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
Top | Home
©-free 2008 Adelaide Institute