In the following text you will find the questions which are most frequently asked about Holocaust Revisionism. You will find my answers by simply clicking on the question. I also have a leaflet for free download which summarizes Holocaust Revisionism in a nutshell. This is the good flyer for a brief introduction and as a handout to others. I wish you a lot of worthwhile discoveries while browsing through the following page.
- What is Revisionism?
- Why is historical Revisionism important?
- Why is Holocaust Revisionism necessary?
- What is meant by “The Holocaust” or “Shoah?”
- What does Holocaust Revisionism claim?
- What about those pictures of mountains of dead bodies in the concentration camps?
- Does it really matter whether prisoners died from disease or poison gas?
- Does it matter how many Jews were killed during the Third Reich since even one thousand would have been too many?
- Whatever the circumstances, don’t Jewish victims deserve respect and compensation?
- Who are the Holocaust Revisionists?
- What do Holocaust Revisionists want?
- Is Holocaust Revisionism illegal?
- Where can I learn more about Holocaust Revisionism?
If you have further questions, please do not hesitate to ask.
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 Zürcher Zeitung of 12 June 1999.
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:
- 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.
- 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. 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.
The Holocaust is – or should – be 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 Germany, are opposed to any critical approach to the Holocaust. In fact, the present German government prosecutes such approaches legally. Here then is an answer to the question of why Revisionism is important (Question 2): The German government obviously intends to maintain the present concept of Holocaust with all the official power at its 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 aren’t more Holocaust skeptics: “Given the nonsense churned out daily by the Holocaust industry, the wonder is that there are so few skeptics” (p. 68). And the late Prof. Raul Hilberg, during his lifetime the leading Holocaust specialist, repeatedly stated 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.
If challenging the Holocaust story, we are inevitably forced to 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, as the Holocaust is the moral corner stone of their version of World War II history.
But this is not just a matter of maintaining a worldwide pecking order of nations or spheres of political influence. For instance, if we look into the war propaganda put forth by the U.S. before and during the wars against Serbia in 1999 and against Iraq in 1991 and 2003, plus when we look into how certain lobby groups have been pushing for a war against Iran since 2005, we recognize a pattern: Slobodan Milosevic, in 1999 leader of tiny Serbia, as well as Saddam Hussein and now Iran’s president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad are compared with… Adolf Hitler. Milosevic and Hussein were even accused of committing (or having committed) similar crimes of genocide – against the Kosovo Albanians here or the Kurds there. These claims, among others, were used to justify the wars. And there is no better justification for a war than to prevent a new Hitler – or a new threat to exterminate the Jewish people, an accusation currently leveled against Ahmadinejad.
We know today that the claims about weapons of mass destruction raised against Hussein were false. But they served their purpose well, because the world is so conditioned to react with automatic, Pavlovian style reflexes to such claims. One reason why these accusations work so well and why the world is so gullible to believe them, no matter how often they have been revealed to be wrong in the past, is because of that giant boogeyman called Hitler. Once his name is dropped and successfully put into the “right” context, there seems to be no stopping. War is the only solution to stop Hitler, Slobo-Hitler, Saddam-Hitler, Mahmoud-Hitler, or whatever their names may be.
It has come to the point where summoning the evil spirits of Adolf Hitler and “his” über-genocide – the holocaust – is the trump card needed to start just about any war the Powers That Be want to wage. Political scientist Norman G. Finkelstein recently agreed to this when he stated in an interview to the 2009 documentary Defamation by Israeli documentary filmmaker Yoav Shamir (starting at 1 hr., 15 min., 46 seconds into the movie):
“The irony is that the Nazi holocaust has now become the main ideological weapon for launching wars of aggression. Every time you want to launch a war of aggression, drag in the Nazi holocaust.”
Wasn’t one of the primary lessons of the world wars supposed to be that wars are evil? And wasn’t another lesson that governments use propaganda tricks to drive people into discriminating against minorities, into ethnic cleansing, into genocide, and into wars? And yet, after World War II the Powers That Be have been very successful in driving their people into one war after the other by referring to this “mother-of-all-wars.” Pacifists are dumbfounded at how good those warmongers are in using the horrors of this greatest war ever to instigate even more wars. And so have some of us been for the past decade or so.
Holocaust Revisionism throws a monkey wrench into this mechanism of "Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace." It challenges the core of the dogma which serves today’s imperialists so well. Famous British Jewish musician and writer Gilad Atzmon wrapped it up nicely in an essay on March 13, 2010
“What is the holocaust religion there to conceal? As long as we fail to ask questions, we will be subjected to Zionists and their Neocon agents’ plots. We will continue killing in the name of Jewish suffering. We will maintain our complicity in Western imperialist crimes against humanity. […] The holocaust became the new Western religion. Unfortunately, it is the most sinister religion known to man. It is a license to kill, to flatten, to nuke, to wipe [out], to rape, to loot and to ethnically cleanse. It made vengeance and revenge into a Western value. […] Holocaust religion robs humanity of its humanism. For the sake of peace and future generations, the holocaust must be stripped of its exceptional status immediately. It must be subjected to thorough historical scrutiny. Truth and truth seeking is an elementary human experience. It must prevail.”
Hence, critically verifying what our leaders claim is the key to peace. And this is what Revisionism stands for: Be critical! Don’t take for granted what those militant Powers want you to believe in justification of their deeds! Instead, look again (Latin: revidere) into their claims! Review their evidence! Revise your opinion, if needed. This definition of Revisionism is the opposite of what those warmongers want you to believe, isn’t it? And for a good reason: because they want to prevent with all means that we obtain and entertain a critical mind.
"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 form 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. Though the general public tend to find it convincing, lawyers rate eyewitness testimony, especially of interested parties, as the least reliable form of evidence: especially so when witnesses confer and are subjected to leading questions, but not to cross-examination. 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.
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:
- An intention on the part of the National Socialist government to physically exterminate Jews;
- An actual plan of the National Socialist government to physically exterminate the Jews;
- A governmental agency and a budget to carry out this plan;
- 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;
- 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.
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 believe the following to be correct:
- There was no National Socialist order for the physical extermination of Jews (cf. R. Widmann);
- Likewise, there was no National-Socialist plan for physical extermination of Jews;
- There was no German organization and no budget for carrying out the alleged extermination plan. Consider the statement by the world-renowned Holocaust researcher R. Hilberg:
“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 Jews]. 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.”
- In detailed investigations of former German concentration camps, expert researchers have established: The internment camps had no homicidal gas chambers or sophisticated methods for mass murder (see the studies about Auschwitz (1) (2) (3) (4) (5), (see also these two video documentaries: “Auschwitz—The Surprising Hidden Truth” and “David Cole in Auschwitz”), Majdanek, Treblinka, Belzec, Sobibor (on these three camps see also the documentary “One Third of the Holocaust”), Stutthof, Chelmno, diesel gas chambers in general – as video). Furthermore, the reports of mass shootings were greatly exaggerated and taken out of context (see H. Tiedemann und G. Rudolf/S. Schröder), and the infamous “gas van,” the so-called mobile gas chambers, are a product of wartime propaganda (see Alvarez).
- 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 (see the investigations about the Auschwitz crematories and pyres, and about pyres in Treblinka, as well as the respective chapters of the individual studies of the camps listed above).
- There is no documentation for the existence of homicidal gas chambers (for Auschwitz see here, for the other camps see the links above), and no material traces of alleged mass murders (see sources given under nos. 4 & 5, especially the chapters about excavations performed in Belzec, in Sobibor, and ground-penetrating radar research in Treblinka as well as revealing air photo analyses (also here)). All the "proofs" rely on eyewitness accounts only, whose unreliability is widely acknowledged (1, 2 and 3 (chapter 4.2., p. 345: "A Thousand Reasons for False Testimonies").
- 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 (see A. Butz).
- 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. Although attempts were made to establish a somewhat accurate figure (see for example the research by W.N. Sanning), the truth is that we simply don’t know, as a comparison of revisionist and mainstream research has shown.
If you want to read a brief summary of revisionist viewpoints, we recommend our leaflet which you can download, print, copy, and distribute as you like. Furthermore, CHP’s Revisionist Archive offers a broad variety of introductory articles available on their website and elsewhere.
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:
Photograph of victims of the typhus epidemic in a mass grave on the concentration camp in Bergen-Belsen, taken by the British Army.
This photo 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, Bergen-Belsen, and Buchenwald, where historians now agree no mass murders took place. Significantly, there are no such photographs taken at the camps in which mass murder is alleged to have occurred (Auschwitz, Treblinka, Belzec, Sobibor, Chelmno, 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 Europe some two 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. (For more on the misinterpretation of conditions in German camps at war’s end see: (1) (2)).
Should the dignity and respect, which we owe the victims of atrocities, depend on their nationality?
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 Norman Finkelstein has to say on this subject.
8. Does it really matter how many Jews were killed during the Third Reich, since even one thousand 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 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 cannot 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 a 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.
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 historic fact 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.
As of 2010 the German government had paid some 68 billion Euros (ca. 95 billion U.S. dollars) in reparations to Jewish individuals and to the State of Israel, and new Jewish claims in the order of a billion Euros were made against Germany in 2007 and 2009. But as large as these sums seem to be, the main issue isn’t even financial in nature, which can be demonstrated with just one example. According to Wikipedia, in just the year 2010 the Germans collectively spent 77.7 billion U.S. dollars during their vacations abroad! (Plus a similarly high amount on top of that during vacations within Germany.) This makes Germany the world leader in foreign tourism expenditures. It is therefore obvious that the Germans spend on vacation every year almost as much as they have paid to victims of the Holocaust and other (alleged or real) persecution committed during World War II. This shows clearly that the burden on the Germans cannot be all that high, financially speaking. So this is not primarily a financial issue.
The real issue is moral and legal in nature. Perhaps you remember a basic principle which is the law in every constitutional state: accountability does not extend to our relatives. There should therefore be a time limit for claims made against the German people, as the wartime generation is slowly dying out.
In addition, this is also a matter or fairness, as the Germans weren’t the only ones inflicting pain and suffering on others. For instance, wouldn’t it be interesting to know when the four million Germans who were exploited as slaves by France, the UK, Norway, the United States, the Soviet Union, Poland, Czechoslovakia, for years and sometimes 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 two million who were murdered or died in the process, the six hundred thousand victims of Allied terror bombings, the millions of Germans who died of starvation under Allied blockage and de-industrialization and Eisenhower’s withholding of food to them, be given proper memoralization? (Please refer to the work by J. Bacque.)
Do not all victims of injustice deserve the same respect and reparations? Or is it the case that some are more equal than others?
Holocaust Revisionists are not a homogenous group.
Our numbers include Jews (Josef G. Burg, Roger Guy Dommergue, David Cole (if defined by birth), Joel Hayward); Christians (Michael A. Hoffman, Robert Countess); Muslims (Ibrahim Alloush, Ahmed Rami, Roger Garaudy) and Atheists (Germar Rudolf, Bradley Smith, David Cole, Robert Faurisson).
Paul Rassinier, a geography and history teacher, was a French Resistance fighter who spent many years in German concentration camps. He disputed the misrepresentations of fellow inmates Eugen 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 are Diploma Chemists, Physicists and Engineers (Michael Gärtner, Germar Rudolf, Arnulf Neumaier, Friedrich Berg), Historians (Mark Weber, Robert Countess, Carlo Mattogno), as well as 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), Libertarians (Andrew Allen, Germar Rudolf, David Cole, Bradley Smith, Richard Widmann), Conservatives (Carlo Mattogno, Werner Rademacher), Rightists (Udo Walendy, Mark Weber) and National Socialists (Ernst Zündel, Vincent Reynouard). Since the author does not consider it important to classify revisionists according to political orientation, he cannot 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.
(Please refer to the author index for the books and articles by the above writers)
Since the Revisionists comprise such a heterogeneous group (see no. 10), 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 lack of evidence for the conventional Holocaust narrative 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 Jewish background?
Fred Leuchter: What would motivate an entirely nonpolitical American expert in the technology of gas execution chambers?
Pierre Guillaume, Serge Thion: What would motivate left-anarchist 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?
Jean Plantin, Germar Rudolf: 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:
"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."
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, publish revisionist views. Things are quite different, however, when we turn to Canada, Australia, or even many countries in Europe.
In Australia and Canada, everything that is perceived as offending the Jewish community will be prosecuted by their extra-judicial "Human Rights Commission". In several European countries, however, Holocaust Revisionism is considered to be a serious crime, with the harshest punishment being meted out by Austria with a maximum of ten years imprisonment (under special circumstances even 20 years). As a consequence, Holocaust Revisionists in Canada, Australia and these European countries have been punished with large fines and prison terms since the middle of the 1980s, and particularly since the 1990s, 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.”
The reason for this persecution is the claim that revisionist theories insult Jews, and that it is illegitimate to pile insult upon those who have been injured during World War II. Although Holocaust Revisionism does not address anything about Jews as such (although some revisionist supporters might), the leaders of most 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, exaggerate or are simply mistaken, but apparently leading Jewish representative feel, and the authorities in numerous western countries agree, that nobody should ever be allowed to claim that certain Jews made untrue statements about the Holocaust.
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” (Die Strafbarkeit des Auschwitz-Leugnens) came to the conclusion that Holocaust Revisionism itself cannot be legally repressed, as this violates basic human rights. The facts are different, though. So how is that discrepancy between ideal and reality excused?
As a justification for this blatant violation of civil rights, it is often claimed that revisionist views, even if presented soberly and without any inflammatory words, could instigate people to commit illegal acts against others (mainly Jews) or could even threaten "the public peace." Purely factual, soberly presented claims, however, can never cause such acts, be they as controversial and taboo-breaking as they want. If people overreact to such texts, the problem lies within those people – their upbringing or social conditioning – or within society itself for having created a taboo in the first place. The claim that matter-of-factual views about the persecution of the Jews itself could be inflammatory is therefore a simple lie. If that method were to be applied universally, it could be misused for the prohibition of each and everything, if only some influential group can be found that feels sufficiently upset or unsettled by it.
In fact, the concept of “the public peace” is a perfect authoritarian tool to suppres any controversial view, even if it is legitimate. The only rule needed for governing free speech is this: Everything is permitted, as long as one does not call for, promote, condone or justify the violation of the civil rights of others. Since all acts that really threaten the public peace, like calls for a violent revolution, insurrection, putsch, riot, pogrom, ethnic cleansing, etc, are at once calls for the violation of the civil rights of others, the concept of “the public peace” becomes obsolete and can no longer be misused by the authorities to stiffle legitimate peaceful yet controversial views.
Another justification for anti-revisionist oppressive laws goes roughly as follows:
Because in the past minorities have been persecuted, dissidents imprisoned and books burned, one feels obliged to do everything in order to prevent a repetition – even if that entails having to persecute minorities, imprison dissident and burn books.
This perversion of logic does not require any further comment. Hence we are dealing with "democratically" enacted, yet tyrannical laws permitting the majority to suppress a peaceful minority, plain and simple. It is therefore not Holocaust Revisionism which is unlawful, but the laws which outlaw it.
U.S. American Henry David Thoreau has wrapped it up nicely when he wrote some 160 years ago (in opposition to war and slavery):
“Unjust laws exist: shall we be content to obey them, or shall we endeavor to amend them, and obey them until we have succeeded, or shall we transgress them at once? Men generally, under such a government as this, think that they ought to wait until they have persuaded the majority to alter them. They think that, if they should resist, the remedy would be worse than the evil. But it is the fault of the government itself that the remedy is worse than the evil. It makes it worse. Why is it not more apt to anticipate and provide for reform? Why does it not cherish its wise minority? Why does it cry and resist before it is hurt? Why does it not encourage its citizens to be on the alert to point out its faults, and do better than it would have them? Why does it always crucify Christ, and excommunicate Copernicus and Luther, and pronounce Washington and Franklin rebels? […]
A minority is powerless while it conforms to the majority; it is not even a minority then; but it is irresistible when it clogs by its whole weight. If the alternative is to keep all just men in prison, or give up war and slavery, the State will not hesitate which to choose. […]
Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison.”—(Walden and other writings, Bantam, Toronto 1981, pp. 92, 94.)
Or to put it with Mahatma Gandhi, who was inspired by Thoreau’s essay some 70 years later:
“So long as the superstition that men should obey unjust laws exists, so long will their slavery exist.”—(Shriman Narayan (ed.), The Selected Works of Mahatma Gandhi, vol. 4, Navajivan Publishing House, Ahmedabad 1969, p. 174.)
The best, fastest, cheapest place for this is the Internet and, especially for English speakers, the websites www.codoh.com, www.ihr.org, www.holocausthandbooks.org as well as www.vho.org. If your service provider blocks these pages (obvious proof of censorship), you can circumvent Big Brother with the help of the free service provided by various anonymizing services, which hide the content you are requesting and receiving from you Internet service provider, so they won’t withhold it.
On www.vho.org, a large part of the entire revisionist body of literature is at your disposal, either directly or through links to other websites. Every page on this website has a tab called “Index” in the navigation menu, through which you will find name, language, and subject indices.
As introductory writings I recommend (the links lead to locations where you can find them online):
- Germar Rudolf, Lectures on the Holocaust
- Thomas Dalton, Debating the Holocaust (not available online; see at Amazon and elsewhere)
For the more advanced reader we recommend
For readers who are interested in papers on certain topics, the following revisionist periodicals are recommended:
- Inconvenient History (since 2009; English)
- The Revisionist (1999-2005; defunct since my arrest in Oct. 2005; English)
- The Journal of Historical Review (1980-2002; defunct; English)
- Vierteljahreshefte für freie Geschichtsforschung (1997-2006; defunct since my arrest in Oct. 2005; German)
You can also visit revisionist bookstores selling some of these items in hardcopy: