Anti-Holocaust revisionism

Anti-Holocaust revisionism are various efforts to counteract

Holocaust revisionism.
The Holocaust
The Holocaust
Anti-Holocaust revisionism
Holocaust motivations
Contents
Holocaust material evidence
Censorship, persecution, and prohibition of Holocaust
revisionism Holocaust documentary evidence
Related censorship Holocaust testimonial evidence
Holocaust revisionism and "hate speech" Holocaust demographics
The term "Holocaust denial" and straw man revisionism Holocaustianity
Agreement among Holocaust revisionists Timelines and alleged origins
"Conspiracy theories"
Allied psychological warfare
Alleged German conspiracy to hide the Holocaust
World War II statements argued to

Themes in anti-revisionist writings

support Holocaust revisionism
Focus on German WWII statements
Focus on persecutions both sides agree on Timelines of Holocaust historiography

Focus on the Western Holocaust camps and revisionism

Focus on discredited arguments and sources
Alleged methods
Focus on the Irving-Lipstadt trial
"Where did they go?" Holocaust camps
Einsatzgruppen
Holocaust education
Wikipedia and RationlWiki
Alleged important evidence
Fictional media Nuremberg trials
References Extraordinary State Commission
Posen speeches
Wannsee conference
Censorship, persecution, and Meanings and translations of German

prohibition of Holocaust words and Holocaust revisionism‎

Holocaust convergence of evidence
revisionism Alleged statements by Hitler on the Holocaust
The Holocaust is in many Western countries an official "Truth" that is Holocaust revisionist websites
illegal to discuss and research freely. Continued attempts are made to
Holocaust revisionist websites
extend such censorship to the remaining Western countries that still
allow free debate and research on the issue. In 2014, Russia and Anti-Holocaust revisionism
Greece implemented "Holocaust denial" laws. In 2015, Romania Alleged German conspiracy

implemented such a law (with help of the United States Holocaust to hide the Holocaust
Memorial Museum‎).[1] In 2016, Italy implemented a "Holocaust Anti-Holocaust revisionism
denial" law. Lobbying efforts are ongoing in order to make the
European Union pass legislation prohibiting free discussion and research in all EU countries.

In 2013, the World Jewish Congress passed a resolution demanding that all the countries of the world must prohibit public
"Holocaust denial".[2]
Some notable convictions for "Holocaust denial" include against

Carlos W. Porter
David Irving
Ernst Zündel
Fredrick Töben
Gaston-Armand Amaudruz
Gerd Honsik, Germar Rudolf
Horst Mahler
Ingrid Weckert European countries with
Jean-Marie Le Pen "Holocaust denial" laws. In
Jean Plantin addition, some countries
Jürgen Graf such as Australia and the
Paul Rassinier Netherlands use other laws
Richard Williamson with the same effect.
Robert Faurisson
Roger Garaudy Non-revisionists may
Serge Thion attempt to downplay the
Sylvia Stolz censorship by arguing that
Thies Christophersen there are still other
countries without
Udo Walendy
censorship. This ignores the
Ursula Haverbeck
increasing number of
Vincent Reynouard
European countries with
Wilhelm Stäglich
censorship, that the
Wolfgang Fröhlich
censorship in Germany
The number of convicted less well-known individuals is unclear. Germany alone has convicted makes it very difficult for
many thousands of individuals each year for "right-wing" "thought crimes", but how many of Germans to defend
these involved the Holocaust is unclear.[3] themselves against
accusations, that the same
During the 1994-2004 time period, there were more than one hundred thousand (101,310) increasingly applies to
criminal prosecutions in Germany for "right-wing" "thought crimes".[4] Europeans more generally
as the Holocaust is an
Persecution and/or censorship have occurred also for groups such as defense witnesses and important cause of White
defense lawyers, if they dispute the politically correct version of the Holocaust or are perceived of guilt, and that the
censorship in countries
doing so.
such as Poland (the
Even in the remaining Western countries not having Holocaust denial laws, both governmental location of the main
"extermination" Holocaust
and private entities often prohibit Holocaust revisionism, even in circumstances where other
camps) makes it difficult to
controversial views are allowed to be expressed. For example, Internet sites with discussion
do research on the
forums often prohibit discussing Holocaust revisionism and booksellers often prohibit selling
Holocaust material
Holocaust revisionism books. Individual Holocaust revisionists are often persecuted through evidence.
various non-law methods, such as by being fired or expelled.

Related censorship
"Holocaust denial" laws may or may not also include more general censorship of free discussion and research on many other
aspects of the history of National Socialist Germany. See National Socialist Germany revisionism.
There may be related censorship of various aspects of WWII, such as in Russia (censorship prohibiting discussion of stated
Soviet atrocities) and Poland (censorship prohibiting discussion of stated Polish atrocities). The Polish censorship has caused
large-scale Jewish protests (including by organizations that support "Holocaust denial" censorship) due to the Polish
censorship censoring claims of Polish involvement in the Holocaust.[5]
In some countries, there may be laws against "genocide denials" more generally, but the Holocaust arguably has a special
position regarding the amount of criticisms against the official version and also regarding the degree of repression of such
criticisms.
Holocaust revisionism and "hate speech"
Official reasons for "Holocaust denial" laws have included that the revisionist arguments are "hate speech" against Jews. One
supposed reason for this is that revisionists argue that some Jewish "witnesses" have deliberately lied for various forms of gain.
However, this does not mean that all Jews are responsible for these argued lies (in the same way that not all citizens of warring
states are responsible for argued war crimes committed by some individuals during a war).

See the article on Holocaust motivations and the section on "Argued exploitation" on revisionists arguing that many non-Jewish
individuals and groups have deliberately lied about and gained from the politically correct version.
See the article Holocaust awareness on most "Holocaust survivors" never themselves witnessing any genocidal mass killings
according to the politically correct version. See also the article Holocaust testimonial evidence and in particular the section
"Witness testimonies" on there being many possible reasons for giving inaccurate testimonies other than deliberate, voluntary
lying. Thus, criticizing the politically correct Holocaust version does not mean that every "Holocaust survivor" is accused of
being a deliberate, voluntary liar.

Revisionists also argue that the political correct version in practice cause collective guilt and hatred against Germans in general and
has contributed to large scale crimes against German civilians (see the article on Claimed mass killings of Germans by the WWII
Allies). Thus, it is possible to see the politically correct version of the Holocaust as "hate speech".

An established Jewish author who visited a Holocaust revisionist conference wrote regarding hate that "I would see none of it,
certainly less than I would see when Jews were speaking of Germans. No one had ever said anything remotely like Elie Wiesel,
‘Every Jew, somewhere in his being, should set aside a zone of hate–healthy, virile hate – for what persists in the Germans,’ and
no one had said anything like Edgar Bronfman, the president of the World Jewish Congress. A shocked professor told Bronfman
once, ‘You are teaching a whole generation to hate thousands of Germans,’ and Bronfman replied, ‘No, I am teaching a whole
generation to hate millions of Germans.’"[6]

Also, if the politically correct version is false, then numerous people (including researchers not advocating any form of violence)
have been falsely punished in various trials and sometimes executed.

Another official reason is that "Holocaust denial" may increase support for "racism" generally. A counter-argument is that the
political correct version and propaganda using it causes hatred against Whites and anti-White policies generally. Furthermore, the
politically correct version is used to attempt to suppress/dismiss scientific research on race and even genetics in general, which
causes ill-informed and therefore often harmful decisions for society in general.

Another argued reason for "Holocaust denial" laws consists of ad hominem by arguing that the researchers are far right. However,
Germar Rudolf have argued that "the extreme right wing" are only a small minority among revisionists researchers who span the
political spectrum including the far left.[7]

There may also be illogical circular reasoning, such as Holocaust denialism being dangerous, since if it is proven that the National
Socialists did not commit a genocide, then this may revive National Socialism, which is dangerous, since National Socialism
committed a genocide.

More generally, revisionists argue that historical research in general and science more broadly often may cause perceived offense
for some individuals or groups. This is in other cases not seen as a reason for censoring science.

More unofficial reasons for laws against "Holocaust denial" may be that the evidence supporting the politically correct version is
weak and cannot stand open debate, that many groups have gained from and have vested interests in the politically correct version,
pathological altruism, and White guilt and exploitation of such guilt. Comparisons have also been made with blasphemy laws, see
the Holocaustianity article.

Revisionists have argued that some mainstream historians have in effect admitted that the evidence supporting the politically
correct version is very weak.[8]

The term "Holocaust denial" and straw man revisionism

The term "Holocaust denial" instead of "Holocaust revisionism" is disfavored by revisionists, since "denial" in one sense means not
accepting a "Truth". There is also the term "negationism", which similarly implies "negationism" of a "Truth".

Holocaust revisionists are sometime accused of being "deniers" because supposedly having a "predetermined conclusion". This is
arguably misleading, since likely most Holocaust revisionists did not start as Holocaust revisionists and instead started with the
"predetermined conclusion" regarding the Holocaust learned in schools and from mass media. They thereafter only gradually
changed their views and became Holocaust revisionists. On the contrary, a view enforced as being "the Truth" by censorship laws
prohibiting criticisms can arguably be described as a "predetermined conclusion".

The term "Holocaust denial" can be seen as a form of ad hominem if Holocaust revisionism is responded to by applying a negative
label without answering the factual arguments.

Furthermore, Holocaust revisionists argue that their criticisms have forced “mainstream” historians to make various revisions.
However, this is seldom admitted to be revisionism, the fact that such revisions have occurred is seldom mentioned, and the role of
non-mainstream Holocaust revisionists in causing these mainstream revisions is not mentioned. One example is the changing
mainstream views on the Western Holocaust camps, argued to have been caused by non-mainstream Holocaust revisionist
criticisms. The revisionist Thomas Kues has argued that "This shows that Holocaust historians were aware of the revisionists
already from the start, and that by 1960 they had already adopted the strategy of discreetly cutting out the most untenable parts
of the gas chamber mythos (without even for a moment considering the evidential foundation of the remainder) while avoiding
naming the revisionists whose writings made these tactical retreats necessary."[9]

Regarding other examples of mainstream revisionism, see The Holocaust: Many earlier Holocaust claims have been admitted to be
incorrect.

Some "mainstream" debates have been influenced by non-mainstream Holocaust revisionism:

Holocaust intentionalism and Holocaust functionalism.

Holocaust material evidence: Gas vans and gas chambers using diesel exhaust.

Also, only some aspects of the politically correct view on the Holocaust are "denied"/revised by Holocaust revisionists, while other
aspects are accepted (such as persecutions and deportations of Jews). In addition, revisionists do not deny the existence of some
events, but argue that the politically correct version of what happened is incorrect (such as killings of some Jews by the
Einsatzgruppen). Furthermore, non-revisionists are argued to incorrectly deny, minimize, and/or ignore many events (such as
World War II statements argued to support Holocaust revisionism).

This use of the term "Holocaust denial" can also be seen as only one part of a more general straw man revisionism. What
revisionists actually argue is misrepresented or anti-revisionists only reply to old arguments, while ignoring newer research (such as
only replying to the first Leuchter Report, while ignoring later reports and arguments on Zyklon B derivatives measurements, see
the article on Missing Zyklon B derivatives in claimed homicidal gas chamber walls argument).

Another problematic term is soft Holocaust denial.

Agreement among Holocaust revisionists

Another example of straw man revisionism is by claiming that revisionists are extremely divided regarding what happened. Instead,
most scholarly revisionists likely generally agree on what is argued to have happened, although they may disagree on specific
details. The exception to this are a few who support Holocaust revisionism lite views, as discussed in the article on this topic.

"Conspiracy theories"
The revisionist version is often criticized as being a "conspiracy theory", which is implied to be dubious in itself. However, it is now
admitted that the Allies made false claims of Germans atrocities for propaganda purposes and in order to deceive the general public
already during the First World War. Examples include false allegations of production of human soap, false allegations of mass
atrocities against the Belgian civilian population, and false allegations of
hundreds of thousands Serbs being killed by methods such as poisonous
gas.[10][11][12][6]

The Communist Soviet Union since its creation routinely falsified history
using a variety of sophisticated methods. Even non-revisionists now admit
that the Soviet Extraordinary State Commission during and after the war
"conspired" and falsely blamed Germans for various crimes in their
reports. See the article on the Extraordinary State Commission.

A common straw man is to state that revisionists argue that everything is

part of an exclusively Jewish and carefully planned conspiracy. As noted in
the article Holocaust motivations, revisionists have instead argued that
there were and are many different parties who would have had or have an
in interest in supporting Holocaust propaganda, for variety of different
reasons. An especially important Holocaust propaganda producer is often
argued to have been Stalin's Soviet Union, despite the Jewish influence
having been greatly reduced during the Great Purge before the war.
Furthermore, all the Allies need not necessarily have planned the wartime
propaganda together, but may instead have copied, imitated, and added to
useful propaganda from other Allies without any central coordination. The first photo shows Joseph Stalin with the
"Vanishing Commissar" (Nikolai Yezhov) in 1937,
See the article Allied psychological warfare on topics such as secret Allied
before Soviet retouching.

organizations engaged in "psychological warfare" and spreading

propaganda, including black propaganda.
Another straw man is by claiming that revisionists argue that all
"confessors" and "witnesses" supporting the politically correct view(s)
were members of a vast conspiracy. Instead, revisionists argue that there
are many different reasons for giving incorrect testimonies and that many
testimonies have been admitted to be incorrect also by non-revisionists.
See the article on Holocaust testimonial evidence.
The second photo is after Soviet retouching, with
Yezhov entirely removed. Also non-revisionist
historians admit that the Communist Soviet Union
had long "conspired" to deceive the general public
by using such fabrications and false propaganda
in order to rewrite history before the war, but
revisionists argue that such fabrications and false
propaganda did not cease with the start of WWII
but continued during and after WWII.

If there was a single powerful propaganda actor who had carefully planned
a false genocide story, then one would expect a story that would at least Examples of revisionist criticisms of claimed
superficially be consistent. Instead, Holocaust revisionists have argued Holocaust photographs: External link (http://www.
that the different Holocaust stories are often grossly absurd and codoh.com/library/document/924/).
inconsistent, which would fit with there being many different propaganda
actors, ranging from individuals to countries, with different motives,
sometimes copying some propaganda parts from other actors, sometimes inventing propaganda on their own, which would cause
numerous different stories, often absurd and contradictory. See also Allied psychological warfare.

Regarding individuals who, for example, may have used coercive methods on National Socialists in order to obtain confessions, this
must not necessarily have been due to being part of a secret conspiracy, but may have been due to a sincere belief that the Holocaust
did occur as claimed by the politically correct versions and that coercion was needed in order to obtain confessions from lying
perpetrators. Similarly, even individuals who may have fabricated/edited Nationalist Socialist documents must not necessarily have
been part of a conspiracy, but may have done so, for example, in order to ensure convictions of accused who were viewed as guilty,
even if clear evidence for this was lacking. Furthermore, possibly deliberately false witness testimonies need not have been due to
the witnesses being part of a secret conspiracy but may have been due to coercion, personal gain, group gain, and/or a variety of
other factors as discussed in the article on Holocaust testimonial evidence.
Revisionists have differed regarding to what degree they see the politically correct Holocaust version as being deliberately
fabricated. For example, some have viewed documents often cited as evidence for the Holocaust as fabricated/edited, others have
viewed them as authentic but misinterpreted. Many would likely argue that much of the initial wartime propaganda was (like the
WWI wartime propaganda) at first deliberately fabricated by various parties, but that many others started to sincerely believe that
the claims were true. Such views were immensely strengthened and seen as verified at the end of the war, by the discovery of some
camps that did contain many corpses. Regarding the continuation of the wartime propaganda into the postwar period, some have
seen this as deliberately organized falsehoods (especially by Stalin's Soviet Union), others as akin to the European witch hunts and
witch trials that self-propagated into a massive movement in which many of the participants sincerely believed (based numerous
"witnesses", "confessors", and other forms of "evidence") that witches existed and needed to be severely persecuted for the good of
society.[6][13]

Alleged German conspiracy to hide the Holocaust

Despite criticizing Holocaust revisionists for "conspiracy theories", anti-Holocaust revisionists at the same time invoke an alleged
National Socialist conspiracy theory, in order to try to explain the absence of various kinds of evidence for the Holocaust. See the
article on the Alleged German conspiracy to hide the Holocaust.

Themes in anti-revisionist writings

Focus on German WWII statements

Postwar "confessions" and "testimonies" are very important sources for the politically correct view(s) on the Holocaust (see
Holocaust testimonial evidence). However, such postwar statements are relatively rarely used as arguments against "Holocaust
denialism", which may be seen as an indirect admission of their unreliable and unconvincing nature. Instead, supporters of the
politically correct view often prefer to cite German wartime documents/statements. See Holocaust documentary evidence on such
statements, including in the section Speeches, diaries, and private conversations by the National Socialist leaders.

In particular, Holocaust revisionists argue that such statements are often mistranslated/misinterpreted. See Meanings and
translations of German words and Holocaust revisionism‎.

Focus on persecutions both sides agree on

Another method is focusing on persecutions of Jews that also revisionists agree on, such as Jews being deported to the Holocaust
camps and killings of some Jews by the Einsatzgruppen, and misleadingly try give the impression that Holocaust revisionists deny
these persecutions and/or that the existence of such persecutions necessarily prove the existence of genocidal killings.

One example is by implying that Holocaust revisionists have criticized Anne Frank's diary because Holocaust revisionists claim that
Anne Frank, or Jews more generally, were not persecuted and not deported to camps, which is incorrect.

Focus on the Western Holocaust camps

The Western Holocaust camps are now admitted to not have been "extermination camps", but they were in the immediate postwar
period an important part of Allied psychological warfare operations.

These camps have continued to be important for the politically correct view on the Holocaust, such as by continued showing of
photographs and movies showing heaps of corpses from these camps to the general public, without mentioning the non-genocidal
causes of deaths, as discussed in the article on these camps.
Another example of use of these camps in order to support the politically
correct view is that both Rationalwiki and Wikipedia give very prominent
place to statements by the Allied Commander Dwight D. Eisenhower on
his visit to the Buchenwald camp in 1945, but make no mention to the
readers on that even non-revisionist historians now admit that this camp
was not an "extermination camp" and had no homicidal gas chambers.

Focus on discredited arguments and sources

Anti-Holocaust may continue to criticize some early revisionist writings,
such as Did Six Million Really Die? and the Leuchter Report, but make no
mention of that also revisionists agree on that these works included some
errors and unsupported statements. Revisionists have argued that these
did not invalidate other arguments stated in or the overall conclusions of
these works. Furthermore, later works, which answered criticisms and
A British Army bulldozer pushes bodies into a
expanded the argumentation, such as the Rudolf Report, may not be
mass grave at the Bergen-Belsen camp in 1945.
mentioned or be mentioned only very briefly.
Today it is admitted that the deaths in this camp
were not due to gassings, but due to causes such
In contrast, anti-revisionists may continue to cite sources that have been
as starvation and diseases. However, such
discredited as support for their views, such as Communist propaganda
images of corpses and mass graves have often
productions, such as the reports by the Extraordinary State Commission.
been framed as showing victims of German mass
killings/gassings. See Western Holocaust camps.

Focus on the Irving-Lipstadt trial Josef Kramer, Commandant of the Bergen-Belsen

The Irving-Lipstadt trial is often framed as having "disproven" Holocaust camp, stated that "The camp was not really
revisionism, which has been criticized for various reasons, as discussed in inefficient before you [British and American
forces] crossed the Rhine. There was running
the article on David Irving.
water, regular meals of a kind […]. But then they
suddenly began to send me trainloads of new
"Where did they go?" prisoners from all over Germany. It was
impossible to cope with them. […] Then as a last
See Holocaust demographics. straw the Allies bombed the electric plant that
pumped our water. Loads of food were unable to
reach the camp because of the Allied fighters.
Holocaust education Then things really got out of hand. […] I did not
Holocaust education in schools has anti-Holocaust revisionism as one even have sufficient staff to bury the dead, let
goal. alone segregate the sick. […] I tried to get
medicines and food for the prisoners and I failed. I
was swamped."[6]

Wikipedia and RationlWiki

See Wikipedia's and RationalWiki's Holocaust articles.
Fictional media
For many people, one of their main source of "knowledge" about the
Holocaust is fictional movies and TV series. See Holocaust fictional
descriptions and Hollywood Nazism.
Revisionists have argued that one of the Allied
motivations for the Allied psychological warfare
regarding the Holocaust was to justify, distract
from, and/or cover-up Allied responsibility for
mass deaths during the war. See Claimed mass
killings of Germans by the WWII Allies.[6]

Many have been stated to be (at least partially) deliberate propaganda against Holocaust revisionism. Some, such as Schindler's
List, even try to give the impression of being documentaries.
References
1. Why Romania had to ban Holocaust denial twice https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/07/27/why-
romania-had-to-ban-holocaust-denial-twice/
2. WJC Approves Resolution Calling for Ban of Public Holocaust Denial http://www.haaretz.com/jewish/news/wjc-approves-
resolution-calling-for-ban-of-public-holocaust-denial.premium-1.519763
3. The Prohibition of Holocaust Denial. https://codoh.com/library/document/1909/?lang=en
4. Censorship in Germany? Never! Unless... http://www.vho.org/censor/D.html#GB
5. Israel Slams ‘Baseless’ Holocaust Legislation in Poland https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/27/world/middleeast/poland-
holocaust-law-israel.html
6. Holocaust Handbooks, Volume 15: Germar Rudolf: Lectures on the Holocaust—Controversial Issues Cross Examined 2nd,
revised and corrected edition. http://holocausthandbooks.com/index.php?page_id=15
7. German Rudolf's Website. http://germarrudolf.com/
8. The Non-Jewish Stake in the Holocaust Mythology: Why the Continued Success of a Failed Ideology?
https://codoh.com/library/document/1919/?lang=en
9. A Chronicle of Holocaust Revisionism, Part 3 (1956-1960) https://codoh.com/library/document/3120/
10. World War I Atrocity Propaganda and the Holocaust, Is There a Lesson Here? http://www.codoh.com/library/document/363/
11. Anti-German Propaganda during WWI http://codoh.com/library/document/916/
12. The Bryce Report, Report of the Committee on Alleged German Outrages http://codoh.com/library/document/905/
13. Paul Eisen. But how could the Holocaust not be true? http://codoh.com/library/document/1970/

Retrieved from "http://en.metapedia.org/m/index.php?title=Anti-Holocaust_revisionism&oldid=448135"

This page was last edited on 13 September 2020, at 10:50.