The Holocaust Controversy: The Case for Open Debate
No subject enrages campus thought police more than holocaust revisionism. We debate every other great historical controversy as a matter of course, but influential pressure groups with private agendas have made the Jewish holocaust an exception. Elitist dogma manipulated by special interest groups has no place in academia. Students should be encouraged to investigate the holocaust story the same way they are encouraged to investigate every other historical event. This isn’t a radical point of view. The premises for it were worked out some time ago during a little something called the Enlightenment.
Revisionists agree with orthodox historians that the German National Socialist State singled out the Jewish people for special and cruel treatment. In addition to viewing Jews in the framework of traditional antiSemitism, the Nazis also saw them as being an influential force behind international communism. During the Second World War, Jews were considered to be enemies of the State and a potential danger to the war effort, much like the Japanese were viewed in this country. Consequently, Jews were stripped of their rights, forced to live in ghettos, conscripted for labor, deprived of their property, deported from the countries of their birth and otherwise mistreated. Many tragically perished in the maelstrom.
Revisionists part company with orthodox historians in that revisionists deny that the German State had a policy to exterminate the Jewish people (or anyone else) by putting them to death in gas chambers or by killing them through abuse or neglect. Revisionists also maintain that the figure of 6 million Jewish deaths is an irresponsible exaggeration, and that no execution gas chambers existed in any camp in Europe which was under German control. Fumigation gas chambers did exist to delouse clothing and equipment to prevent disease at the camps. Most likely it is from this lifesaving procedure that the myth of extermination gas chambers emerged.
Revisionists generally hold that the Allied governments decided to carry their wartime “black propaganda” of unique German monstrosity over into the postwar period. This was done for essentially three reasons. First, they felt it necessary to continue to justify the great sacrifices that were made in fighting two world wars. A second reason was that they wanted to divert attention from and to justify their own particularly brutal crimes against humanity which, apart from Soviet atrocities, involved massive incendiary bombings of the civilian populations of German and Japanese cities. The third and perhaps most important reason was that they needed justification for the postwar arrangements which, among other things, involved the annexation of large parts of Germany into Poland. These territories were not disputed borderlands but included huge parts of Germany proper. The millions of Germans living in these regions were to be dispossessed of their property and brutally expelled from their homelands. Many hundreds of thousands were to perish in the process. A similar fate was to befall the Sudeten Germans.
During the war, and in the postwar era as well, Zionist organizations were deeply involved in creating and promulgating anti-German hate propaganda. There is little doubt that their purpose was to drum up world sympathy and political and financial support for Jewish causes, especially for the formation of the State of Israel. Today, while the political benefits of the holocaust story have largely dissipated, the story still plays an important role in the ambitions of Zionists and others in the Jewish community. It is the leaders of these political and propaganda organizations who continue to work to sustain the holocaust legend and the myth of unique German monstrosity during the Second World War.
For it is certain that if there had been “killing factories” in Poland murdering millions of civilians, the Red Cross, the Pope, humanitarian agencies, the Allied governments, neutral governments, and prominent figures such as Roosevelt, Truman, Churchill, Eisenhower and many others would have known about it and would have often and unambiguously mentioned it, and condemned it. They didn’t. The promoters admit that only a tiny group of individuals believed the story at the time — many of whom were connected with Jewish propaganda agencies. The rise of the Holocaust story reads more like the success story of a PR campaign than anything else.
Winston Churchill wrote the six volumes of his monumental work, The Second World War, without mentioning a program of mass-murder and genocide. Maybe it slipped his mind. Dwight D. Eisenhower, in his memoir Crusade in Europe, also failed to mention gas chambers. Was the weapon used to murder millions of Jews unworthy of a passing reference? Was our future president being insensitive to Jews?
Many people, when they first hear holocaust revisionist arguments, find themselves bewildered. The arguments appear to make sense but, they reason, “How is it possible?” The whole world believes the holocaust story. It’s just not plausible that so great a conspiracy to suppress the truth could have functioned for 50 years.
To understand how it could very well have happened, one needs only to reflect on the intellectual and political orthodoxies of medieval Europe, or those of Nazi Germany or the Communist-bloc countries. In all of these societies the great majority of scholars were caught up in the existing political culture. Committed to a prevailing ideology and its interpretation of reality, these scholars and intellectuals felt it was their right, and even their duty, to protect every aspect of that ideology. They did so by oppressing the evil dissidents who expressed “offensive” or “dangerous” ideas. In every one of those societies, scholars became Thought Police. One can learn much about the psychology and methodology of thought police by watching how they react when just one of their taboos is broken and holocaust revisionism is given a public forum.
First they express outrage that such offensive and dangerous ideas were allowed to be expressed publicly. they avoid answering or debating these ideas, claiming that to do so would give them a forum and legitimacy. Then they make vicious personal attacks against the revisionist heretic, calling him dirty political names such as “anti-Semite,” “racist” or “neo-Nazi,” and they even suggest that he is a potential mass murderer. They publicly accuse the revisionist of lying, but they don’t allow the heretic to hear the specific charge or to face his accusers so that he can answer this slander.
The Holocausters accuse revisionists of being hate filled people who are promoting a doctrine of hatred. But revisionism is a scholarly process, not a doctrine or an ideology. If the holocaust promoters want to expose hatred, they should take a second look at their own doctrines, and a long look at themselves in the mirror.