NOVANEWS
In 2009 Mark Weber of the IHR wrote an article in which he questioned the relevance of Holocaust revisionism. Mark saw the Holocaust as a manifestation, rather than a cause of Jewish power and so debunking it would not have all that much effect on Jewish hegemony in the west nor on the situation in Israel/Palestine.
It caused a lot of fuss in revisionist circles. The IHR had long been seen as the central institution of Revisionism though, as Mark pointed out, IHR stands for Institute of Historical, not Holocaust, Review. But still, many revisionists felt that Mark had somehow betrayed their cause. You can read Mark’s response to these criticisms in the second piece below
I’m in some agreement with his view. We’ve already seen how the disproving of key tenets of the Holocaust narrative e.g. the official downgrading of the number of Auschwitz fatalities has had little or no effect on the Holocaust religion.
Because the Holocaust is a religion, albeit a decidedly godless one.
And this surely is the point: the Holocaust, like all ideologies, needs no proof, just faith.
As quoted in a previous post, few would hold the Exodus from Egypt to be literal truth but note its enduring power, an emblem of all liberation struggles. Similarly, many doubt the literal truth of the Birth and Resurrection of Christ, but the power of those events to move us and to influence our society is still profound.
Jewish children with their families, now commemorate their Shoa with every bit as much religious commitment and fervour as they do Passover, Chanukkah, Tish B”av and Purim – all commemorations of Jewish suffering and triumph over adversity.
The only question remaining is, must the rest of humankind join in.
How Relevant is Holocaust Revisionism?
By Mark Weber
January 7, 2009
For more than 30 years, writers and publicists who call themselves revisionists have presented evidence and arguments questioning generally accepted accounts of the Holocaust. Some of these researchers have shown impressive fortitude — defying smears, abuse, physical violence, and worse. /1
In countries where “Holocaust denial” is a crime, skeptics have been fined, imprisoned or forced into exile for expressing dissident views on this issue. /2 These victims of what amounts to a blatant suppression of free speech include Robert Faurisson and Roger Garaudy in France, Siegfried Verbeke in Belgium, Jürgen Graf and Gaston-Armand Amaudruz in Switzerland, and Ernst Zundel and Germar Rudolf in Germany.
Revisionists have published impressive evidence, including long neglected documents and testimony, that has contributed to a more complete and accurate understanding of an emotion-laden and highly polemicized chapter of history.
I have played a role in this effort. In published writings, in lectures, and in courtroom testimony, I have devoted much time and work to critically reviewing the “official” Holocaust narrative, to countering Holocaust propaganda, and to debunking specific Holocaust claims.
But in spite of years of effort by revisionists, including some serious work that on occasion has forced “mainstream” historians to make startling concessions, /3 there has been little success in convincing people that the familiar Holocaust story is defective.
This lack of success is not difficult to understand. Revisionists are up against a well-organized, decades-long campaign that is promoted in the mass media, reinforced in classrooms, and supported by politicians. /4
Tim Cole, a history professor and prominent specialist of Holocaust studies, has written in his book Selling the Holocaust: “From a relatively slow start, we have now come to the point where Jewish culture in particular, and Western culture more generally, are saturated with the ‘Holocaust’. Indeed, the ‘Holocaust’ has saturated Western culture to such an extent that it appears not only centre stage, but also lurks in the background. This can be seen in the remarkable number of contemporary movies which include the ‘Holocaust’ as plot or sub-plot.”
Between 1989 and 2003 alone, more than 170 films with Holocaust themes were made. In many American and European schools, a focus on the wartime suffering of Europe’s Jews is obligatory. Every major American city has at least one Holocaust museum or memorial. The largest is the US Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, DC, which is run by a taxpayer-funded federal government agency, and draws some two million visitors yearly.
A number of countries, including Britain, Germany and Italy, officially observe an annual Holocaust Remembrance Day. The United Nations General Assembly in 2005 approved a resolution introduced by Israel to designate January 27 as an international Holocaust remembrance day.
In the United States and western Europe, the Holocaust has become a venerated, semi-religious mythos. Prof. Michael Goldberg, an eminent rabbi, has written of what he calls a “Holocaust cult with its own tenets of faith, rites and shrines.” In this age of secular “political correctness,” Holocaust “denial” is the modern equivalent of sacrilege.
A major reason for the lack of success in persuading people that conventional Holocaust accounts are fraudulent or exaggerated is that — as revisionists acknowledge — Jews in Europe were, in fact, singled out during the war years for especially severe treatment.
This was confirmed, for example, by German propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels in these confidential entries in his wartime diary: /5
Feb. 14, 1942: “The Führer [Hitler] once again expresses his resolve ruthlessly to clear the Jews out of Europe. There must be no squeamish sentimentalism about it. The Jews have deserved the catastrophe that they are now experiencing. Their destruction will go hand in hand with the destruction of our enemies. We must hasten this process with cold ruthlessness.”
March 27, 1942: “The Jews are now being deported to the East from the Generalgouvernement [Poland], starting around Lublin. The procedure is a pretty barbaric one and not to be described here more definitely, and there’s not much left of the Jews. By and large, one can say that 60 percent of them will have to be liquidated, while only 40 percent can be put to work. The former Gauleiter of Vienna, who is carrying out the operation, is proceeding quite judiciously, using a method that is not all too conspicuous. The Jews are facing a judgment which, while barbaric, they fully deserve. The prophecy the Führer made about them for having brought on a new world war is beginning to come true in the most terrible manner. One must not be sentimental in these matters.”
April 29, 1942: “Short shrift is being made of the Jews in all eastern occupied territories. Tens of thousands of them are being wiped out.”
No informed person disputes that Europe’s Jews did, in fact, suffer a great catastrophe during the Second World War. Millions were forced from their homes and deported to brutal internment in crowded ghettos and camps. Jewish communities across Central and Eastern Europe, large and small, were wiped out. Millions lost their lives. When the war ended in 1945, most of the Jews of Germany, Poland, the Netherlands and others countries were gone.
Given all this, it should not be surprising that even well-founded revisionist arguments are often dismissed as heartless quibbling.
But despite a discouraging record of achievement, some revisionists insist that their work is vitally important because success in exposing the Holocaust as a hoax will deliver a shattering blow to Israel and Jewish-Zionist power. This view, however, is based on a mistaken understanding of the relationship between “Holocaust remembrance” and Jewish-Zionist power.
Even before World War II, the organized Jewish community was playing a major role in the political and cultural life of Europe and the United States, and the Zionist movement was already very influential. Although propaganda about the wartime catastrophe of Europe’s Jews was a factor in American society during the 1950s and 1960s, it was not until the late 1970s that “the Holocaust” began to play a really significant social-political role. It was not until the late 1970s and early 1980s that the term began to appear as a specific entry in standard encyclopedias and reference books, and became an obligatory subject in American textbooks and classrooms.
In short, the Holocaust assumed an important role in the social-cultural life of America and western Europe in keeping with, and as an expression of, a phenomenal increase in Jewish influence and power. The Holocaust “remembrance” campaign is not so much a source of Jewish-Zionist power as it is an expression of it. For that reason, debunking the Holocaust will not shatter that power.
Suppose The New York Times were to report tomorrow that Israel’s Yad Vashem Holocaust center and the US Holocaust Memorial Museum had announced that no more than one million Jews died during World War II, and that no Jews were killed in gas chambers at Auschwitz. The impact on Jewish-Zionist power would surely be minimal.
Although “Holocaust remembrance” remains well entrenched in our society, its impact seems to have diminished in recent years. In part this is because the men and women of the World War II generation are nearly all gone. But another factor has been a major shift in the world-political situation. The collapse of the Soviet Union and the Soviet empire, the end of US-Soviet “Cold War” rivalry, the Nine-Eleven terror attack in 2001, the US invasion and occupation of Iraq, and current world economic crisis, have ushered in a new era – one in which the Holocaust imagery of the 1940s is less potent because it’s less relevant.
Criticism of Israel and its policies has become much more common in recent years, even in the United States. Among thoughtful men and women, and especially among the young, sympathy for Israel has fallen noticeably, while skepticism about the role of the Holocaust in society has grown. Tony Judt, a prominent Jewish scholar who lives and works in New York, wrote recently: /6
“Students today do not need to be reminded of the genocide of the Jews, the historical consequences of anti-Semitism, or the problem of evil. They know all about these – in ways our parents never did. And that is as it should be. But I have been struck lately by the frequency with which new questions are surfacing: ‘Why do we focus so much on the Holocaust?’ ‘Why is it illegal [in certain countries] to deny the Holocaust but not other genocides?’ ‘Is the threat of anti-Semitism not exaggerated?’ And, increasingly, ‘Doesn’t Israel use the Holocaust as an excuse?’ I do not recall hearing those questions in the past.”
This shift has also been noticed at the Institute for Historical Review. Over the past ten years, sales of IHR books, discs, flyers and other items about Holocaust history have steadily declined, along with inquiries about Holocaust history and requests for interviews on this subject. At the same time, and obviously reflecting broader social-cultural trends, there has been a marked rise in sales of IHR books, discs, flyers and other items about Jewish-Zionist power, the role of Jews in society, and so forth. This has been matched by an increase in the number of inquiries and requests for interviews on those issues.
Jewish-Zionist power is a palpable reality with harmful consequences for America, the Middle East, and the entire global community. In my view, and as I have repeatedly emphasized, the task of exposing and countering this power is a crucially important one. /7 In that effort, Holocaust revisionism cannot play a central role.
One influential statesman who seems to understand this is the former prime minister of Malaysia, Mahathir Mohammed. In a much-discussed address delivered at an international conference in October 2003, he spoke forthrightly against Jewish-Zionist power, while making clear that he accepts the familiar “Six Million” Holocaust narrative. In the global struggle against this power, he said, “we are up against a people who think … We cannot fight them through brawn alone. We must use our brains also … The Europeans killed six million Jews out of twelve million. But today the Jews rule this world by proxy. They get others to fight and die for them.” /8
Setting straight the historical record about the wartime fate of Europe’s Jews is a worthy endeavor. But there should be no illusions about its social-political relevance. In the real world struggle against Jewish-Zionist power, Holocaust revisionism has proved to be as much a hindrance as a help.
Notes
1. “Jewish Militants: Fifteen Years, and More, of Terrorism in France.” The Journal of Historical Review, March-April 1996
( http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v16/v16n2p-2_Faurisson.html )
2. M. Weber, “Toben’s Arrest: A New Assault Against Free Speech.” Oct. 2008
( http://www.ihr.org/other/oct08toben.html )
3. Robert Faurisson, “The Victories of Revisionism.” Dec. 2006
( http://www.fpp.co.uk/Auschwitz/Faurisson/at_Teheran_conf_2005.html, and,http://www.codoh.com/viewpoints/vprfvict.html ); R. Faurisson, “Impact and Future of Holocaust Revisionism.” The Journal of Historical Review, Jan.-Feb. 2000.
( http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v19/v19n1p-2_Faurisson.html )
4. M. Weber, “Holocaust Remembrance: What’s Behind the Campaign.” Feb. 2006.
( http://www.ihr.org/leaflets/holocaust_remembrance.shtml )
5. These Goebbels diaries quotes are from: Louis P. Lochner, ed., The Goebbels Diaries (Doubleday, 1948), pp. 86, 147-148, 195; Wilhelm Staeglich, Auschwitz: A Judge Looks at the Evidence (IHR, 1990), pp. 88-89; David Irving, Goebbels: Mastermind of the Third Reich (London: Focal Point, 1996), pp. 387, 388, 392.
6. Tony Judt, “The ‘Problem of Evil’ in Postwar Europe,” The New York Review of Books, Feb. 14, 2008, pp. 33-35.
( http://www.nybooks.com/articles/21031 )
7. M. Weber, “In the Struggle for Truth and Justice.” August 2008.
( http://www.ihr.org/other/aug08weber.html ); M. Weber, “The Israel Lobby: How Important Is It.” Nov 2007.
( http://www.ihr.org/other/0711_webereugene.html ) See also: M. Weber, “A Straight Look at the Jewish Lobby.” Dec. 2007
( http://www.ihr.org/leaflets/jewishlobby.shtml )
8. J. Aglionby, “Fight Jews, Mahathir tells summit,” The Guardian (Britain) , Oct. 17, 2003.
( http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/oct/17/malaysia ) Quoted in: M. Weber, “In the Struggle for Peace and Justice: Countering Jewish-Zionist Power.” August 2008.
.
It caused a lot of fuss in revisionist circles. The IHR had long been seen as the central institution of Revisionism though, as Mark pointed out, IHR stands for Institute of Historical, not Holocaust, Review. But still, many revisionists felt that Mark had somehow betrayed their cause. You can read Mark’s response to these criticisms in the second piece below
I’m in some agreement with his view. We’ve already seen how the disproving of key tenets of the Holocaust narrative e.g. the official downgrading of the number of Auschwitz fatalities has had little or no effect on the Holocaust religion.
Because the Holocaust is a religion, albeit a decidedly godless one.
And this surely is the point: the Holocaust, like all ideologies, needs no proof, just faith.
As quoted in a previous post, few would hold the Exodus from Egypt to be literal truth but note its enduring power, an emblem of all liberation struggles. Similarly, many doubt the literal truth of the Birth and Resurrection of Christ, but the power of those events to move us and to influence our society is still profound.
Jewish children with their families, now commemorate their Shoa with every bit as much religious commitment and fervour as they do Passover, Chanukkah, Tish B”av and Purim – all commemorations of Jewish suffering and triumph over adversity.
The only question remaining is, must the rest of humankind join in.
How Relevant is Holocaust Revisionism?
By Mark Weber
January 7, 2009
For more than 30 years, writers and publicists who call themselves revisionists have presented evidence and arguments questioning generally accepted accounts of the Holocaust. Some of these researchers have shown impressive fortitude — defying smears, abuse, physical violence, and worse. /1
In countries where “Holocaust denial” is a crime, skeptics have been fined, imprisoned or forced into exile for expressing dissident views on this issue. /2 These victims of what amounts to a blatant suppression of free speech include Robert Faurisson and Roger Garaudy in France, Siegfried Verbeke in Belgium, Jürgen Graf and Gaston-Armand Amaudruz in Switzerland, and Ernst Zundel and Germar Rudolf in Germany.
Revisionists have published impressive evidence, including long neglected documents and testimony, that has contributed to a more complete and accurate understanding of an emotion-laden and highly polemicized chapter of history.
I have played a role in this effort. In published writings, in lectures, and in courtroom testimony, I have devoted much time and work to critically reviewing the “official” Holocaust narrative, to countering Holocaust propaganda, and to debunking specific Holocaust claims.
But in spite of years of effort by revisionists, including some serious work that on occasion has forced “mainstream” historians to make startling concessions, /3 there has been little success in convincing people that the familiar Holocaust story is defective.
This lack of success is not difficult to understand. Revisionists are up against a well-organized, decades-long campaign that is promoted in the mass media, reinforced in classrooms, and supported by politicians. /4
Tim Cole, a history professor and prominent specialist of Holocaust studies, has written in his book Selling the Holocaust: “From a relatively slow start, we have now come to the point where Jewish culture in particular, and Western culture more generally, are saturated with the ‘Holocaust’. Indeed, the ‘Holocaust’ has saturated Western culture to such an extent that it appears not only centre stage, but also lurks in the background. This can be seen in the remarkable number of contemporary movies which include the ‘Holocaust’ as plot or sub-plot.”
Between 1989 and 2003 alone, more than 170 films with Holocaust themes were made. In many American and European schools, a focus on the wartime suffering of Europe’s Jews is obligatory. Every major American city has at least one Holocaust museum or memorial. The largest is the US Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, DC, which is run by a taxpayer-funded federal government agency, and draws some two million visitors yearly.
A number of countries, including Britain, Germany and Italy, officially observe an annual Holocaust Remembrance Day. The United Nations General Assembly in 2005 approved a resolution introduced by Israel to designate January 27 as an international Holocaust remembrance day.
In the United States and western Europe, the Holocaust has become a venerated, semi-religious mythos. Prof. Michael Goldberg, an eminent rabbi, has written of what he calls a “Holocaust cult with its own tenets of faith, rites and shrines.” In this age of secular “political correctness,” Holocaust “denial” is the modern equivalent of sacrilege.
A major reason for the lack of success in persuading people that conventional Holocaust accounts are fraudulent or exaggerated is that — as revisionists acknowledge — Jews in Europe were, in fact, singled out during the war years for especially severe treatment.
This was confirmed, for example, by German propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels in these confidential entries in his wartime diary: /5
Feb. 14, 1942: “The Führer [Hitler] once again expresses his resolve ruthlessly to clear the Jews out of Europe. There must be no squeamish sentimentalism about it. The Jews have deserved the catastrophe that they are now experiencing. Their destruction will go hand in hand with the destruction of our enemies. We must hasten this process with cold ruthlessness.”
March 27, 1942: “The Jews are now being deported to the East from the Generalgouvernement [Poland], starting around Lublin. The procedure is a pretty barbaric one and not to be described here more definitely, and there’s not much left of the Jews. By and large, one can say that 60 percent of them will have to be liquidated, while only 40 percent can be put to work. The former Gauleiter of Vienna, who is carrying out the operation, is proceeding quite judiciously, using a method that is not all too conspicuous. The Jews are facing a judgment which, while barbaric, they fully deserve. The prophecy the Führer made about them for having brought on a new world war is beginning to come true in the most terrible manner. One must not be sentimental in these matters.”
April 29, 1942: “Short shrift is being made of the Jews in all eastern occupied territories. Tens of thousands of them are being wiped out.”
No informed person disputes that Europe’s Jews did, in fact, suffer a great catastrophe during the Second World War. Millions were forced from their homes and deported to brutal internment in crowded ghettos and camps. Jewish communities across Central and Eastern Europe, large and small, were wiped out. Millions lost their lives. When the war ended in 1945, most of the Jews of Germany, Poland, the Netherlands and others countries were gone.
Given all this, it should not be surprising that even well-founded revisionist arguments are often dismissed as heartless quibbling.
But despite a discouraging record of achievement, some revisionists insist that their work is vitally important because success in exposing the Holocaust as a hoax will deliver a shattering blow to Israel and Jewish-Zionist power. This view, however, is based on a mistaken understanding of the relationship between “Holocaust remembrance” and Jewish-Zionist power.
Even before World War II, the organized Jewish community was playing a major role in the political and cultural life of Europe and the United States, and the Zionist movement was already very influential. Although propaganda about the wartime catastrophe of Europe’s Jews was a factor in American society during the 1950s and 1960s, it was not until the late 1970s that “the Holocaust” began to play a really significant social-political role. It was not until the late 1970s and early 1980s that the term began to appear as a specific entry in standard encyclopedias and reference books, and became an obligatory subject in American textbooks and classrooms.
In short, the Holocaust assumed an important role in the social-cultural life of America and western Europe in keeping with, and as an expression of, a phenomenal increase in Jewish influence and power. The Holocaust “remembrance” campaign is not so much a source of Jewish-Zionist power as it is an expression of it. For that reason, debunking the Holocaust will not shatter that power.
Suppose The New York Times were to report tomorrow that Israel’s Yad Vashem Holocaust center and the US Holocaust Memorial Museum had announced that no more than one million Jews died during World War II, and that no Jews were killed in gas chambers at Auschwitz. The impact on Jewish-Zionist power would surely be minimal.
Although “Holocaust remembrance” remains well entrenched in our society, its impact seems to have diminished in recent years. In part this is because the men and women of the World War II generation are nearly all gone. But another factor has been a major shift in the world-political situation. The collapse of the Soviet Union and the Soviet empire, the end of US-Soviet “Cold War” rivalry, the Nine-Eleven terror attack in 2001, the US invasion and occupation of Iraq, and current world economic crisis, have ushered in a new era – one in which the Holocaust imagery of the 1940s is less potent because it’s less relevant.
Criticism of Israel and its policies has become much more common in recent years, even in the United States. Among thoughtful men and women, and especially among the young, sympathy for Israel has fallen noticeably, while skepticism about the role of the Holocaust in society has grown. Tony Judt, a prominent Jewish scholar who lives and works in New York, wrote recently: /6
“Students today do not need to be reminded of the genocide of the Jews, the historical consequences of anti-Semitism, or the problem of evil. They know all about these – in ways our parents never did. And that is as it should be. But I have been struck lately by the frequency with which new questions are surfacing: ‘Why do we focus so much on the Holocaust?’ ‘Why is it illegal [in certain countries] to deny the Holocaust but not other genocides?’ ‘Is the threat of anti-Semitism not exaggerated?’ And, increasingly, ‘Doesn’t Israel use the Holocaust as an excuse?’ I do not recall hearing those questions in the past.”
This shift has also been noticed at the Institute for Historical Review. Over the past ten years, sales of IHR books, discs, flyers and other items about Holocaust history have steadily declined, along with inquiries about Holocaust history and requests for interviews on this subject. At the same time, and obviously reflecting broader social-cultural trends, there has been a marked rise in sales of IHR books, discs, flyers and other items about Jewish-Zionist power, the role of Jews in society, and so forth. This has been matched by an increase in the number of inquiries and requests for interviews on those issues.
Jewish-Zionist power is a palpable reality with harmful consequences for America, the Middle East, and the entire global community. In my view, and as I have repeatedly emphasized, the task of exposing and countering this power is a crucially important one. /7 In that effort, Holocaust revisionism cannot play a central role.
One influential statesman who seems to understand this is the former prime minister of Malaysia, Mahathir Mohammed. In a much-discussed address delivered at an international conference in October 2003, he spoke forthrightly against Jewish-Zionist power, while making clear that he accepts the familiar “Six Million” Holocaust narrative. In the global struggle against this power, he said, “we are up against a people who think … We cannot fight them through brawn alone. We must use our brains also … The Europeans killed six million Jews out of twelve million. But today the Jews rule this world by proxy. They get others to fight and die for them.” /8
Setting straight the historical record about the wartime fate of Europe’s Jews is a worthy endeavor. But there should be no illusions about its social-political relevance. In the real world struggle against Jewish-Zionist power, Holocaust revisionism has proved to be as much a hindrance as a help.
Notes
1. “Jewish Militants: Fifteen Years, and More, of Terrorism in France.” The Journal of Historical Review, March-April 1996
( http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v16/v16n2p-2_Faurisson.html )
2. M. Weber, “Toben’s Arrest: A New Assault Against Free Speech.” Oct. 2008
( http://www.ihr.org/other/oct08toben.html )
3. Robert Faurisson, “The Victories of Revisionism.” Dec. 2006
( http://www.fpp.co.uk/Auschwitz/Faurisson/at_Teheran_conf_2005.html, and,http://www.codoh.com/viewpoints/vprfvict.html ); R. Faurisson, “Impact and Future of Holocaust Revisionism.” The Journal of Historical Review, Jan.-Feb. 2000.
( http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v19/v19n1p-2_Faurisson.html )
4. M. Weber, “Holocaust Remembrance: What’s Behind the Campaign.” Feb. 2006.
( http://www.ihr.org/leaflets/holocaust_remembrance.shtml )
5. These Goebbels diaries quotes are from: Louis P. Lochner, ed., The Goebbels Diaries (Doubleday, 1948), pp. 86, 147-148, 195; Wilhelm Staeglich, Auschwitz: A Judge Looks at the Evidence (IHR, 1990), pp. 88-89; David Irving, Goebbels: Mastermind of the Third Reich (London: Focal Point, 1996), pp. 387, 388, 392.
6. Tony Judt, “The ‘Problem of Evil’ in Postwar Europe,” The New York Review of Books, Feb. 14, 2008, pp. 33-35.
( http://www.nybooks.com/articles/21031 )
7. M. Weber, “In the Struggle for Truth and Justice.” August 2008.
( http://www.ihr.org/other/aug08weber.html ); M. Weber, “The Israel Lobby: How Important Is It.” Nov 2007.
( http://www.ihr.org/other/0711_webereugene.html ) See also: M. Weber, “A Straight Look at the Jewish Lobby.” Dec. 2007
( http://www.ihr.org/leaflets/jewishlobby.shtml )
8. J. Aglionby, “Fight Jews, Mahathir tells summit,” The Guardian (Britain) , Oct. 17, 2003.
( http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/oct/17/malaysia ) Quoted in: M. Weber, “In the Struggle for Peace and Justice: Countering Jewish-Zionist Power.” August 2008.
.
Follow Up: A Reply to Critics of My Essay
on the Relevance of Holocaust Revisionism
By Mark Weber
Director, Institute for Historical Review
February 13, 2009
My January 7 essay, “How Relevant is Holocaust Revisionism?,” (http://www.ihr.org/weber_revisionism_jan09.html ) has generated a lot of discussion, including a report in the nationally-distributed Jewish community weekly Forward. It has prompted many messages of praise and support, and, as expected, heated criticism from some in the “revisionist community.”
Critics accuse me of “defeatism,” “surrender,” “betrayal,” and of “abandoning” Holocaust revisionism. Some complain that I’ve taken a “new position,” or that my article signals a “new direction” for the IHR.
And yet, what I wrote in the essay is not at all new. I’ve been making the same points for years, both publicly and in private, including in an address, “The IHR and Revisionism: Challenges in the New Century,” at the 14th IHR Conference in June 2002. My recent essay does not represent a “new position” or attitude, nor does it signal a new direction or policy for the IHR. For years the Institute’s work has been entirely consistent with what I wrote in my recent essay.
Some critics say that I now regard Holocaust revisionism as irrelevant, unimportant, or a “waste of time.” In fact, I have never said or suggested any such thing. In my recent essay I specifically wrote: “Revisionists have published impressive evidence, including long neglected documents and testimony, that has contributed to a more complete and accurate understanding of an emotion-laden and highly polemicized chapter of history.”
Few Americans have done more than I have – in writing, interviews, courtroom testimony, and so forth – to counter Holocaust lies, distortions and propaganda, or to help set straight the historical record about “the Holocaust” from a critical, revisionist perspective. And as director of the IHR, I have maintained the Institute’s position as an important center of Holocaust revisionism.
Some of the most bitter criticisms of my essay have come from individuals who seem to think that the IHR is, or should be, the “Institute for Holocaust Review.” Such persons do not understand the IHR’s well-established purpose and mission.
Not long after its founding, the first IHR director explained his vision of the Institute’s focus and direction. In the Summer 1980 issue of the IHR Journal, he wrote:
“… On a longer term basis, we need to have Historical Revisionism over a whole range of 20th century events, particularly the lead-in to the world wars. For it is only by understanding the real reasons and real nature of warfare that we will be able to avoid future warfare. Therefore as of the next issue, we will be devoting more of our space to non-‘Holocaust’ matters than we have done so far. We will cover as wide a range of 20th century events as possible, in order to gain more insight and understanding of the real reasons behind them.”
For years, each issue of the IHR Journal explained that the Institute “upholds and continues the tradition of Historical Revisionism of scholars such as Harry Elmer Barnes, A.J.P. Taylor, Charles Tansill, Paul Rassinier and William H. Chamberlin.” Of these five men, only Rassinier is noted for writings on the Holocaust.
Our mission is also laid out in the “About Us” section of the IHR website: “The Institute for Historical Review works to promote peace, understanding and justice through greater public awareness of the past, and especially socially-politically relevant aspects of twentieth-century history. It strives above all to increase understanding of the causes, nature and consequences of war and conflict.”
Some critics claim that I have “abandoned” Holocaust revisionism because I no longer regard it as an effective propaganda weapon against Israel. In fact, I have always believed that revisionism is important regardless of its relevance to Israel and Zionism.
Holocaust revisionism — that is, setting straight the historical record about the fate of Europe’s Jews during World War II — is important. Countering Jewish-Zionist power is important. But we should have a clear understanding of the real relation between those two things. As important as Holocaust revisionism has been, I do not think that it’s proven very effective in countering Jewish-Zionist power. That’s why I wrote that “Holocaust revisionism cannot play a central role” in “the task of exposing and countering” that power.
In my essay I distanced myself from the efforts of “some revisionists” to promote Holocaust revisionism for political purposes. Robert Faurisson, for one, has been emphatic in spelling out a political agenda for revisionism. In a recent interview with an Algerian newspaper (http://www.globalfire.tv/nj/09en/history/faurisson_echorouk.htm ) he said:
“We all have the means to help in the liberation of Palestine. These means consist in making known to the whole world the findings of revisionist research. All credibility must be taken away from the alleged ‘Holocaust,’ which has become the number one weapon of Zionism and the State of Israel; this lie is the sword and shield of that State. It would be absurd to try to defend against the Israelis’ military armament whilst sparing their number one worldwide propaganda weapon.
“Whoever allows himself to claim that the alleged Nazi gas chambers and the alleged genocide of the Jews are a historical reality is, whether he likes it or not, giving support to a horrid lie that has become the number one war propaganda weapon of the State of Israel, a colonialist, racist and imperialist State. Let whoever has the nerve to support the ‘Holocaust’ myth look at his hands. His hands are red with the blood of Palestinian children!’.”
In my view, such rhetoric is irresponsible. I do not accept that the hands of Stephen Walt, John Mearsheimer, Kevin MacDonald, Norman Finkelstein, Mahathir Mohammed or George Galloway, to name just a few who embrace the familiar Holocaust narrative, are “red with the blood of Palestinian children.”
Some have seized on my essay to rebuke me for my work. These critics do not understand, or do not want to understand, my responsibilities as director of the IHR, or my managerial and administrative duties as president of the Institute’s parent corporation. Some complain, for example, that the IHR’s Journal of Historical Review is no longer issued, and refuse to accept that publication was halted for compelling financial and personnel reasons.
In that regard, it’s worth noting that, through the Internet, the IHR now routinely brings revisionist writings to vastly more people than was ever possible just a few years ago. Each week many more people read IHR Journal articles and reviews posted on our website than ever saw them in their original, printed form.
Some critics are unhappy that the IHR has not been more successful in promoting Holocaust revisionism in society at large. They may look back wistfully on the “good old days” of the late 1980s and early 1990s when Holocaust revisionists were in the news, and making headlines across the country.
During those years Bradley Smith, chairman of the “Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust” (CODOH), was appearing regularly as a guest on radio talk shows, and his work was highlighted in the press and on television. On campus after campus, Smith’s CODOH ads provoked enormous publicity, while the resulting furor generated news reports and commentary in newspapers, magazines and television and radio broadcasts across the country.
During the 1991-92 school year, Smith placed advertisements or statements calling for open debate on the Holocaust issue in 17 campus newspapers, including student papers at several major universities. During the 1993-94 school year, his CODOH notice was published, in one form or another, in at least 35 college and university student papers, as well as in one major metropolitan daily. In April 1992 David Cole and I were promoting Holocaust revisionism as guests on the nationally broadcast “Montel Williams” television show, and in March 1994 Smith and Cole were doing the same as guests on the popular “Phil Donahue” television show.
But that was then. In recent years Smith has been much less successful in promoting Holocaust revisionism. Why? Certainly not because he is lazy, incompetent or insincere. It is due to factors beyond his or anyone’s control – factors specified in my January 7 essay.
I am pleased that, as I had hoped, my recent essay has generated a vigorous discussion about important issues – issues that we revisionists have too often avoided. My confidence in the validity of what I wrote there has been bolstered by the many messages and telephone calls of support I’ve received from individuals whose discernment and intelligence I respect, including unexpected praise from noteworthy writers and activists. In some cases, supporters have matched their praise for my essay with new pledges of financial support for the IHR.
During the 1920s historical revisionism was largely devoted to debunking the victorious powers’ portrayal of the origins of the First World War. During the 1960s a major focus was on correcting the official view of the origins and course of World War II. In this first decade of a new century, the focus of historical revisionism is not, and cannot be, the same as it was in the 1920s, 1960s, or 1980s.
This is a time of great change and great opportunity. The IHR, I believe, is uniquely positioned to deal forthrightly and effectively with issues of intense and growing worldwide interest. To be vital, historical revisionism must be relevant. If the Institute is to survive and prosper, it must adjust its focus and work to match the times. We must reach aware and concerned people — especially younger men and women — far beyond the small and insular “revisionist community.” I will continue to do my best to strengthen the Institute as a vital and pertinent factor in the real world.
on the Relevance of Holocaust Revisionism
By Mark Weber
Director, Institute for Historical Review
February 13, 2009
My January 7 essay, “How Relevant is Holocaust Revisionism?,” (http://www.ihr.org/weber_revisionism_jan09.html ) has generated a lot of discussion, including a report in the nationally-distributed Jewish community weekly Forward. It has prompted many messages of praise and support, and, as expected, heated criticism from some in the “revisionist community.”
Critics accuse me of “defeatism,” “surrender,” “betrayal,” and of “abandoning” Holocaust revisionism. Some complain that I’ve taken a “new position,” or that my article signals a “new direction” for the IHR.
And yet, what I wrote in the essay is not at all new. I’ve been making the same points for years, both publicly and in private, including in an address, “The IHR and Revisionism: Challenges in the New Century,” at the 14th IHR Conference in June 2002. My recent essay does not represent a “new position” or attitude, nor does it signal a new direction or policy for the IHR. For years the Institute’s work has been entirely consistent with what I wrote in my recent essay.
Some critics say that I now regard Holocaust revisionism as irrelevant, unimportant, or a “waste of time.” In fact, I have never said or suggested any such thing. In my recent essay I specifically wrote: “Revisionists have published impressive evidence, including long neglected documents and testimony, that has contributed to a more complete and accurate understanding of an emotion-laden and highly polemicized chapter of history.”
Few Americans have done more than I have – in writing, interviews, courtroom testimony, and so forth – to counter Holocaust lies, distortions and propaganda, or to help set straight the historical record about “the Holocaust” from a critical, revisionist perspective. And as director of the IHR, I have maintained the Institute’s position as an important center of Holocaust revisionism.
Some of the most bitter criticisms of my essay have come from individuals who seem to think that the IHR is, or should be, the “Institute for Holocaust Review.” Such persons do not understand the IHR’s well-established purpose and mission.
Not long after its founding, the first IHR director explained his vision of the Institute’s focus and direction. In the Summer 1980 issue of the IHR Journal, he wrote:
“… On a longer term basis, we need to have Historical Revisionism over a whole range of 20th century events, particularly the lead-in to the world wars. For it is only by understanding the real reasons and real nature of warfare that we will be able to avoid future warfare. Therefore as of the next issue, we will be devoting more of our space to non-‘Holocaust’ matters than we have done so far. We will cover as wide a range of 20th century events as possible, in order to gain more insight and understanding of the real reasons behind them.”
For years, each issue of the IHR Journal explained that the Institute “upholds and continues the tradition of Historical Revisionism of scholars such as Harry Elmer Barnes, A.J.P. Taylor, Charles Tansill, Paul Rassinier and William H. Chamberlin.” Of these five men, only Rassinier is noted for writings on the Holocaust.
Our mission is also laid out in the “About Us” section of the IHR website: “The Institute for Historical Review works to promote peace, understanding and justice through greater public awareness of the past, and especially socially-politically relevant aspects of twentieth-century history. It strives above all to increase understanding of the causes, nature and consequences of war and conflict.”
Some critics claim that I have “abandoned” Holocaust revisionism because I no longer regard it as an effective propaganda weapon against Israel. In fact, I have always believed that revisionism is important regardless of its relevance to Israel and Zionism.
Holocaust revisionism — that is, setting straight the historical record about the fate of Europe’s Jews during World War II — is important. Countering Jewish-Zionist power is important. But we should have a clear understanding of the real relation between those two things. As important as Holocaust revisionism has been, I do not think that it’s proven very effective in countering Jewish-Zionist power. That’s why I wrote that “Holocaust revisionism cannot play a central role” in “the task of exposing and countering” that power.
In my essay I distanced myself from the efforts of “some revisionists” to promote Holocaust revisionism for political purposes. Robert Faurisson, for one, has been emphatic in spelling out a political agenda for revisionism. In a recent interview with an Algerian newspaper (http://www.globalfire.tv/nj/09en/history/faurisson_echorouk.htm ) he said:
“We all have the means to help in the liberation of Palestine. These means consist in making known to the whole world the findings of revisionist research. All credibility must be taken away from the alleged ‘Holocaust,’ which has become the number one weapon of Zionism and the State of Israel; this lie is the sword and shield of that State. It would be absurd to try to defend against the Israelis’ military armament whilst sparing their number one worldwide propaganda weapon.
“Whoever allows himself to claim that the alleged Nazi gas chambers and the alleged genocide of the Jews are a historical reality is, whether he likes it or not, giving support to a horrid lie that has become the number one war propaganda weapon of the State of Israel, a colonialist, racist and imperialist State. Let whoever has the nerve to support the ‘Holocaust’ myth look at his hands. His hands are red with the blood of Palestinian children!’.”
In my view, such rhetoric is irresponsible. I do not accept that the hands of Stephen Walt, John Mearsheimer, Kevin MacDonald, Norman Finkelstein, Mahathir Mohammed or George Galloway, to name just a few who embrace the familiar Holocaust narrative, are “red with the blood of Palestinian children.”
Some have seized on my essay to rebuke me for my work. These critics do not understand, or do not want to understand, my responsibilities as director of the IHR, or my managerial and administrative duties as president of the Institute’s parent corporation. Some complain, for example, that the IHR’s Journal of Historical Review is no longer issued, and refuse to accept that publication was halted for compelling financial and personnel reasons.
In that regard, it’s worth noting that, through the Internet, the IHR now routinely brings revisionist writings to vastly more people than was ever possible just a few years ago. Each week many more people read IHR Journal articles and reviews posted on our website than ever saw them in their original, printed form.
Some critics are unhappy that the IHR has not been more successful in promoting Holocaust revisionism in society at large. They may look back wistfully on the “good old days” of the late 1980s and early 1990s when Holocaust revisionists were in the news, and making headlines across the country.
During those years Bradley Smith, chairman of the “Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust” (CODOH), was appearing regularly as a guest on radio talk shows, and his work was highlighted in the press and on television. On campus after campus, Smith’s CODOH ads provoked enormous publicity, while the resulting furor generated news reports and commentary in newspapers, magazines and television and radio broadcasts across the country.
During the 1991-92 school year, Smith placed advertisements or statements calling for open debate on the Holocaust issue in 17 campus newspapers, including student papers at several major universities. During the 1993-94 school year, his CODOH notice was published, in one form or another, in at least 35 college and university student papers, as well as in one major metropolitan daily. In April 1992 David Cole and I were promoting Holocaust revisionism as guests on the nationally broadcast “Montel Williams” television show, and in March 1994 Smith and Cole were doing the same as guests on the popular “Phil Donahue” television show.
But that was then. In recent years Smith has been much less successful in promoting Holocaust revisionism. Why? Certainly not because he is lazy, incompetent or insincere. It is due to factors beyond his or anyone’s control – factors specified in my January 7 essay.
I am pleased that, as I had hoped, my recent essay has generated a vigorous discussion about important issues – issues that we revisionists have too often avoided. My confidence in the validity of what I wrote there has been bolstered by the many messages and telephone calls of support I’ve received from individuals whose discernment and intelligence I respect, including unexpected praise from noteworthy writers and activists. In some cases, supporters have matched their praise for my essay with new pledges of financial support for the IHR.
During the 1920s historical revisionism was largely devoted to debunking the victorious powers’ portrayal of the origins of the First World War. During the 1960s a major focus was on correcting the official view of the origins and course of World War II. In this first decade of a new century, the focus of historical revisionism is not, and cannot be, the same as it was in the 1920s, 1960s, or 1980s.
This is a time of great change and great opportunity. The IHR, I believe, is uniquely positioned to deal forthrightly and effectively with issues of intense and growing worldwide interest. To be vital, historical revisionism must be relevant. If the Institute is to survive and prosper, it must adjust its focus and work to match the times. We must reach aware and concerned people — especially younger men and women — far beyond the small and insular “revisionist community.” I will continue to do my best to strengthen the Institute as a vital and pertinent factor in the real world.
