The Holocaust Story

If the Holocaust was an event in history, it should be open to the routine critical examination to which all other historical events are open. Those who feel it right to argue against the “unique monstrosity” of the Germans should be free to do so. No one should be imprisoned for thought crimes. Contrary to how Hollywood and the Israeli-Firsters have it, the Holocaust story is not about Jews. It’s about Jews and Germans together, inseparable, for all time to come.

Friday, December 30, 2005


The Certainties of Evil and the Politics of Not-Forgetting
By Dagmar Barnouw

Ms. Barnouw is Professor of German and Comparative Literature, University of Southern California, and author of Visible Spaces: Hannah Arendt and the German Jewish Experience, John Hopkins (1990). She lives in Del Mar, California. Her latest book is The War in the Empty Air: Victims, Perpetrators, And Postwar Germans.

“The Holocaust” as a construct of memory stories about the historical events of Nazi rule began its spectacular rise in Western culture with the Eichmann trial that located Jewish identity in the experience of extreme suffering and victimization. Presented on the stage of the world, before hundreds of journalists of the print and electronic media, this trial changed the earlier universalist perspective on Nazi crimes by focusing on individual Holocaust witnesses. The chief prosecutor Gideon Hausner had chosen a large number of witnesses on the basis of their written testimonies and his subsequent interviews with them.

His goal was to derive the dramatic structure of Eichmann’s trial exclusively from their stories rather than the extensive collection of Nazi documents gathered by the Israeli police.The extreme experience of “the Holocaust”could only become ‘real’ for the millions of readers, listeners and viewers of the trial, if a large number of carefully coached survivors testified in person and thereby individualized the uniqueness of unimaginably cruel persecution. In the cumulative acts of individual recitation, however, these stories would not draw on collective memories “refreshed,” as Hausner had hoped, by the witnesses’ recorded testimonies.

Rather, the emotions released by the recitations overpowered the witnesses to the point where they became their stories of extreme suffering—an identification that exploded the elaborate choreography of the trial. Screaming with the recalled pain, fainting from the remembered fear, the performance of their past persecution collapsed all temporal and spatial distance between the narrator and the narrated and thereby erased the historicity of their experiences of persecution, that is, the complex relational historical reality of Nazi crimes.


Wednesday, December 28, 2005

The Forward
December 30, 2005

THE DISPUTATION: Our Role in Promoting Holocaust Denial
By David Klinghoffer

When Klinghoffer speaks of "our" role in promoting Holocaust denial he evades the question of how "they" promote the Holocaust story itself. That is, they promote the Holocaust, and they promote its "denial" at the same time. A nice irony. He recognizes the fact that "they" have gone too far and that "they" have put the whole enchilada at risk. It would not appear that way to civilians, but to those of us who soldier along on either side of the question, we can see what is happening. Thier promotion of the story and its denial, and their slander and sliming of those who question the story and are contemptuous of how it is promoted, has gone over the top. It's a case where too much success leads to the inevitable quest for a rational balance and good sense. This quest is going on now all around the world.

Lately we Jews have displayed a weakness for a style of rhetorical overreach in which the Holocaust is deployed as a stick to threaten those whom some of us find objectionable. It should not startle anyone if Jew haters, seeing what a favorite weapon the Holocaust has become, seek to wrestle it out of our hands by denying it ever happened.

Read more Forward Forum

Friday, December 23, 2005

The case for restricting free speech

This one comes from Ralf Dahrendorf writing for the New Straits Times. Dahrendorf is the author of numerous books and a former European Commissioner from Germany, is a member of the British House of Lords and a former rector of the London School of Economics. Dahrendorf makes a logical case. He argues that "for free societies to flourish, the boundaries of free speech should always be widened rather than narrowed."

Let's try revisionists in the court of public opinion not in the chains of Europe's prisons. Revisionists are thoughtcriminals today the same as "communists" were thoughtcriminals of the 1950's. It is interesting that many who denounce the "red scare" and the excesses of McCarthyism are silent as our own government cooperates with those in Europe who would lock away "political" prisoners who have thought, written and spoken words with which those in power do not agree.

COMMENT: The case for restricting free speech

Ralf Dahrendorf
Dec 22

NOT so long ago, there was jubilation that the free world and its values had prevailed in the Cold War. When the communist empire collapsed, some even announced that the victory of liberty and democracy implied the "end of history".

But history never bowed out; at most, it only took a decade-long intermission, with its next act heralded by the terrorist attacks in the United States in September 2001. And here the plot has thickened. Instead of rejoicing in the liberal order, those of us who have the pleasure of living under it have had to struggle to keep it intact and strong.Since 9/11, more and more freedoms are being restricted in the name of defending liberty. New visa requirements and other obstacles to travel, more intimate data collected by governments, and the presence of video cameras everywhere — at once benign and intrusive — remind one more of George Orwell’s "Big Brother" than of John Stuart Mill’s "On Liberty". Britain is not the only country where ancient rights of habeas corpus, of the inviolability of the person, are to be restricted by new legislation that, for example, extends the permissible length of detention without charge. Now, even the fundamental right of a liberal order, free speech, is under pressure.Some restrictions are understandable legacies of the past, but must nevertheless be re-examined. In Austria, the historian David Irving was arrested recently because he has denied that the Holocaust happened. In the prison library, however, Irving found two of the books he had written that had led to his arrest!

In Berlin, there is much concern about the possible desecration of the Holocaust Memorial, although its author, the American architect Peter Eisenmann, takes a relaxed view of what is said and done about his creation.Other restrictions of free speech have more recent triggers.

In the Netherlands, the shock that arose over the killing of the film-maker Theo van Gogh runs deep and has led to demands for legislation against hate speech. In Britain, proposed legislation concerning incitement to religious hatred and terrorism has led to emotional parliamentary debates — and to doubts about the liberal credentials of Tony Blair’s Government.Can such demands for restricting free speech ever be legitimate? The first and principled answer must surely be no. All freedoms can be abused by liberty’s enemies, but in the case of speech, the risk posed by restricting freedom is surely greater.Moreover, the benefits of tolerating free speech outweigh the harm of abusing it. Indeed, the Nobel laureate economist Amartya Sen has demonstrated that free speech even helps mitigate seemingly natural catastrophes like famines, because it reveals the ways in which a few haves exploit the many have-nots.

As the watchdog organisation Transparency International reminds us, corruption exposed is in many cases corruption prevented. These practical consequences are above and beyond the liberating effect of allowing the "marketplace of ideas", rather than state authorities, to judge people’s expressed views.Are there really no exceptions to this rule? The classic example comes to mind of the man who shouts "Fire!" in a crowded theatre. In the resulting panic, people may be hurt or even killed. Nowadays, we worry about incitement — using free speech to provoke violence.I do not know how many Islamic leaders preach murder and mayhem in mosques and help recruit suicide bombers from among their congregants; but even if it is only a handful, they pose a question that must be answered.That answer must be given carefully. For free societies to flourish, the boundaries of free speech should always be widened rather than narrowed. In my view, Holocaust denial should not be outlawed, in contrast to the demand for all, or any, Jews to be killed.Similarly, attacks against the West in mosques, however vicious, should not be banned, in contrast to open encouragement to join suicide death squads.

What about the mere praise of "martyrs" who have died while murdering others? The boundary between implicit and explicit incitement is not easily drawn, but, again, it should be wider rather than narrower.Free speech is immensely precious, and so is the dignity and integrity of humans.Both require active and alert citizens who engage what they do not like rather than calling for the state to clamp down on it. Direct incitement to violence is regarded — as it should be — as an unacceptable abuse of free speech; but much that is disagreeable about the David Irvings and the hate preachers does not fall into this category. Their rants should be rejected with argument, not with police and prisons. — Project Syndicate

Original Article

Annual Report on "Holocaust Denial"

Here is an interesting piece. The David S. Wyman Institute for Holocaust Studies has issued their annual report on Holocaust denial. The article suggests that the Institute is supportive of the persecution of revisionists by the countries of Austria, Belgium, Czechoslovakia, France, Germany, and the Netherlands. The Wyman Institute doesn't appear to understand that this persecution is one of the principal drivers of the acceptance of revisionist theory in Arab countries.

The charge of antisemitism is of course absurd. The time is quickly coming when the arguments of the revisionists will no longer be able to be disgarded with such a simple charge.

Only when the Holocaust is a free subject again will the truth of this tragedy be properly known and understood by all. In the meantime the persecution of revisionist researchers and scholars is only stirring up a volatile mixture in the Mid-east.

Peace in the region will only be possible when a free and open exchange of ideas is allowed. In the meantime any organization dedicated to Holocaust studies should be at the forefront of those denouncing the persecution and incarceration of researchers on this subject.

Annual Report Finds Holocaust-Deniers Gained in Arab & Muslim World in 2005, But Lost Ground in U.S. and Europe
Thu Dec 22, 7:00 AM ET

To: National Desk

Contact: Rafael Medoff of The David S. Wyman Institute for Holocaust Studies, 215-635-5622 or

PHILADELPHIA, Dec. 22 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Holocaust-deniers suffered setbacks in the United States and Europe this past year, but made gains in Arab and Muslim countries, according to this year's annual report on Holocaust-denial activity around the world.

The year-end report, Holocaust Denial: A Global Survey -- 2005, is published by The David S. Wyman Institute for Holocaust Studies, which is located on the campus of Gratz College, near Philadelphia. The report's co-authors are Holocaust scholars Dr. Rafael Medoff, director of the Wyman Institute, and Dr. Alex Grobman, author of a recent book on Holocaust denial. ( For the complete text of the new report, please visit

Holocaust-denial was the subject of widespread public attention this past year, due to Holocaust-denial statements by the president of Iran and the announcement that Mel Gibson is involved in a forthcoming television series about the Holocaust. (Gibson's father denies the Holocaust, and Gibson himself has made statements minimizing and distorting the Holocaust.) These developments were reported extensively by the New York Times, Washington Post, CNN, Associated Press, and other major news media.

Original Story

Egypt's opposition leader denies Holocaust

Apparently the Arab world is taking notice of the West's increasing intolerance of Holocaust revisionists. Here we see that both the cases of Roger Garaudy and David Irving are mentioned. The persecution of revisionists and the absolute refusal to allow open debate on this one subject -- the Holocaust suggests to any objective mind that someone has something to hide. If Irving and Rudolf and Garaudy and Zuendel had nothing worthwhile to say, if their ideas were so ridiculous, without even a kernal of truth, they would be relegated to the dustbin of history. There are those who "deny" that the United States ever went to the moon. This theory is ridiculous - but as such it is treated accordingly. Such authors are not arrested. They do not have their books burned.

Holocaust revisionists are on to something. The Arab world is slowly becoming aware of this based on their treatment by the West. It should be becoming obvious that not everyone who has doubts about Holocaust can be imprisoned. Open debate on this subject is finally becoming inevitable.

Egypt's opposition leader denies Holocaust
23 December 2005

CAIRO: The head of Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood, the main opposition force in parliament, has echoed Iran's president in describing the World War 2 Holocaust of European Jews as a myth.

"Western democracy has attacked everyone who does not share the vision of the sons of Zion as far as the myth of the Holocaust is concerned," Mohamed Mahdi Akef said in a statement today.

Akef cited as evidence of Western intolerance the cases of French writer Roger Garoudy, who was convicted in France in 1998 of questioning the Holocaust, and British historian David Irving, who faces similar charges in Austria next month.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad sparked an international uproar when he said in a December 14 speech that the Holocaust was a myth.

Some 6 million Jews were killed by the Nazis and their allies between 1933 and 1945.

Akef, whose group won 88 of the Egyptian parliament's 454 seats in elections in November and December, made his comment in an attack on the United States' assertion that it is promoting democracy in the Middle East.

He said the US campaign was a cover for promoting its own interests and those of the Zionist movement in the region.

"American democracy. . . steers the world into the American orbit delineated by the sons of Zion, so that everyone must wear the Stars and Stripes hat and keep away from the Zionist foster child," he wrote in his weekly statement.

He accused the US House of Representatives of hypocrisy when it threatened to cut off aid to the Palestinian Authority if the Islamist movement Hamas takes part in January elections.

He also criticised European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana for saying that Europeans might think twice about aid to the Palestinians if Hamas members were in parliament.

Hamas says it is an extension of Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood, which was founded in 1928 and which renounced political violence inside Egypt decades ago. Hamas believes in armed struggle to replace Israel with an Islamic state.

Last week the deputy leader of the Brotherhood, Mohamed Habib, asked about Ahmadinejad's denial of the Holocaust, said reports of Nazi attempts to wipe out European Jews might have been exaggerated.

"We don't have confirmed things to enable us to prove this matter or refute it. It needs documentation but what one can be sure of is that there were attacks on the Jews but not by means of gas chambers or perhaps not in these numbers or on this scale," Habib said in an interview.

But Habib said the debate was irrelevant to the situation of the Palestinians. "What the Jews propagate about there being a Holocaust has nothing to do with the way they treat the Palestinians on the land of Palestine," he said.

Original Story

Iran Again

It seems that a week can't go by without Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad making the news. Although this one doesn't have much to do with the Holocaust, it does confirm my thoughts on the Iranian President. Ahmadinejad is not the sort of guy you want to befriend. Although some revisionists were happy to see a head of state call the Holocaust a "myth," this is the same head of state who has banned open Christian witness to Muslims. This government sends spies to monitor Christian groups and believers are routinely discriminated against. Iran typifies Islamic fundamentalism. The Iranian revolution of 1979 supported many radical Islamic groups in Arab countries around the world. In the years since their revolution Iran has supported Islamic fundamentalists who have terrorized the world. Now we see that Ahmadinejad has banned Western music.

The only hero of this piece is Ali Rahbari, the conductor of the Tehran Symphony Orchestra. Rahbari conducted Beethoven's 9th Symphony and then proceeded to get out of the country. Revisionists would do well to condemn Ahmadinejad and his regime. Those who would ban music and disallow freedom of religion and freedom of speech should always be denounced. Ahmadinejad is not the sort of "friend" revisionists need or should accept.

Iran Revives Broadcast Ban on Western Music

By Nasser Karimi
Associated Press
Tuesday, December 20, 2005; Page A25

TEHRAN, Dec. 19 -- President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has banned all Western music from Iran's state radio and TV stations -- a throwback to the 1979 Islamic revolution, when popular music was outlawed as "un-Islamic" under Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini.

The official IRAN Persian daily reported Monday that Ahmadinejad, as head of the Supreme Council of the Cultural Revolution, ordered the enactment of an October ruling by the council to ban all Western music, including classical music, on state broadcast outlets.

Ahmadinejad's order means the state broadcasting authority must execute the decree and prepare a report on its implementation within six months, according to the IRAN Persian daily.

Earlier this month, Ali Rahbari, conductor of Tehran's symphony orchestra, resigned and left Iran to protest the treatment of the music industry in Iran.

Music was outlawed by Khomeini soon after the 1979 revolution. Many musicians went abroad and built an Iranian music industry in Los Angeles.

But as revolutionary fervor started to fade, some light classical music was allowed on Iranian radio and television; some public concerts reappeared in the late 1980s. Since Khomeini's death in 1989, pop music has been creeping into Iranian shops.

In the 1990s, particularly during the presidency of reformist Mohammad Khatami starting in 1997, authorities began relaxing restrictions further. These days in Iran, Western music, films and clothing are widely available. Bootleg videos and DVDs of films banned by the state are widely available on the black market.

The ban enacted by Ahmadinejad applies to state-run radio and TV. But Iranians with satellite dishes can get broadcasts originating outside the country.

Monday, December 19, 2005

On Thursday, December 15, in the southern city of Zahedan, the Iranian president asked why the Palestinian people should be forced to pay if it is true that Jews were massacred by Europeans. I think it is a nice question. One that our professorial class refuses, and has refused for over half a century, to address.

Tehran says questions about Holocaust part of 'scholarly debate'

Tehran Times Political Desk 19 December 2005

TEHRAN – The Foreign Ministry said on Sunday that the view expressed by President Mahmud Ahmadinejad that there are some doubts about the Jewish Holocaust is not something new and is a matter of "scholarly debate".

Some leading historians have written books arguing that the Zionists are exaggerating the number of Jews killed during the Second World War when they say that six million Jews were massacred.

"The type of response from the Europeans to the theoretical and scholarly debate of Mr. Ahmadinejad has no place in the civilized world and is totally emotional and illogical," Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid-Reza Asefi told reporters at his weekly press briefing.

Asefi said he was surprised over the intensity of the criticism now directed at the Iranian president.
Mr. Ahmadinejad initiated a scholarly debate, so the reaction is surprising, he added.

"The reaction from European officials is a sign of their total, blind support for the Zionists.

"The Europeans should get used to hearing other opinions, even if they don't like them," Asefi said.

On Thursday, December 15, in the southern city of Zahedan, the Iranian president asked why the Palestinian people should be forced to pay if it is true that Jews were massacred by Europeans.

“If you say it is true that you massacred and burned six million Jews during the Second World War, if you committed this massacre, why should the Palestinians pay the price?

“Why, under the pretext of this massacre, have you come to the heart of Palestine and the Islamic world (…), why have you created an artificial Zionist regime?”

Holy Holocaust

The often thought-provoking Edgar J. Steele has posted one of his excellent "Nickle Rants" about being listed as a Holocaust denier by the ADL, entitled "Holy Holocaust!". Rather than recant and kiss the anus of a goat, Mr. Steele damns the torpedos and goes full speed ahead.

Wednesday, December 14, 2005

Gollnisch to face court for Holocaust revisionism

Bruno Gollnisch, a member of the European parliament has expressed a very normal and objective opinion with regard to the famed Nazi Gas Chambers. Without taking any stand, he merely said, "it is up to historians to decide." Imagine being asked about the Kennedy assassination and responding, "I don't really know, it is up to historians to decide" and for that opinion, being brought up on charges and possibly face jail time.

From the most obscure to the most well known event in history, imagine answering as Gollnisch did only to find yourself in front of a court. Imagine being asked if Jesus was in fact the Christ, the long-awaited Messiah and responding, "it is up to historians to decide" and for that being dragged before a court.

What type of truth needs such protection? Why does the west fear intellectual freedom on this one topic?

French far-right politician to face court for Holocaust revisionism

Tue Dec 13, 2:28 PM ET
The European Parliament lifted the immunity of Bruno Gollnisch, deputy leader of France's extreme right National Front party, paving the way for his trial on charges of Holocaust revisionism.

Gollnisch, a member of the European parliament and right-hand man of France's far-right leader Jean-Marie Le Pen, is now set to face trial before a French court from May next year, on charges of denying crimes against humanity.

The accusations surround comments he made before reporters in October 2004 saying that the existence of Nazi gas chambers during World War II was "up to historians to decide". He later reiterated the comments.

European deputies decided not to defend their colleague's immunity, in line with the recommendations of a report from the parliament's legal affairs committee debated in the assembly on Monday.

The lawmakers decided that Gollnisch had not made the comments while exercising his parliamentary functions, but in his capacity as professor at Lyon university in eastern France.

Original Story

Holocaust comments spark outrage

The President of Iran Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has made the headlines again. This time for calling the Holocaust a myth. As I pointed out a few days ago, Ahmadinejad isn't the type of person you necessarily want to take sides with. Still, I wonder exactly how "myth" was translated from his native language. Even in English, we have a few definitions and the word is not generally understood. Webster's describes myth as "a traditional story of unknown authorship, ostensibly with a historical basis, but serving usually to explain some phenomenon of nature, the origin of man, or the customs, institutions, religious rites, etc. of a people. Of course there is also the definition, "any fictious story." It seems that within the context that Ahmadinejad was using the first definition.

This would tie in exactly with Roger Garaudy's perspective in his book, "The Founding Myths of Modern Israel." In that book, Garaudy included a chapter on "The Myth of the Six Million (The Holocaust)." It wouldn't be surprising at all if Ahmadinejad was familiar with this work. Garaudy converted from Catholicism to Islam in 1982. He had become an advocate of the Palestinian cause. His book thrilled the Islamic world just as it was condemned in the West.

The time has come for the West to objectively take a look at the Holocaust and stop arresting every dissident historian. The action's of the West only confirm the worst suspicions of our "enemies."

Holocaust comments spark outrage

International condemnation has greeted comments by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad that the Nazi Holocaust was "a myth". Mr Ahmadinejad said he did not believe six million Jews had died at the hands of the Nazis last century.

Germany said his comments could harm attempts to restart nuclear talks.

A White House spokesman said the comments showed the need to "keep Iran from developing nuclear weapons".

"All responsible leaders in the international community recognise how outrageous such comments are," said spokesman Scott McClellan.

'Shocking' comments

Mr Ahmadinejad made the comments while speaking on live TV in the south-eastern city of Zahedan.

"They have created a myth today that they call the massacre of Jews and they consider it a principle above God, religions and the prophets," he said.

He called for Europe or North America - even Alaska - to host a Jewish state, not the Middle East.

German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier told reporters Mr Ahmadinejad's remarks were "shocking".

"I cannot deny that they may weigh on...the chances for the negotiations on the so-called nuclear dossier," he said.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel wants EU leaders to discuss Iran's stance
The German foreign ministry also said Chancellor Angela Merkel wanted to hold a meeting of EU leaders this week in Brussels to tell Iran "these remarks are totally unacceptable".

Israel's spokesman said the Iranian president's latest remarks reflected a "perverse vision of the world held by this regime".

The outburst by Mr Ahmadinejad follows earlier anti-Israeli comments.

He has brushed aside criticism of his views, saying it was orchestrated by supporters of Israel.

The president also returned to his earlier theme that Europe should shoulder the responsibility for a Jewish state.

"If you [Europeans] committed this big crime, then why should the oppressed Palestinian nation pay the price?

"This is our proposal: give a part of your own land in Europe, the US, Canada or Alaska to them so that the Jews can establish their country," he said.

Since his election in June, Mr Ahmadinejad has taken a more hardline stance towards Israel in public than his predecessors.

BBC Tehran correspondent Frances Harrison says the Iranian press has endorsed the president's views, calling them logical and less passive than the approach of previous Iranian governments.

Monday, December 12, 2005

Holocaust Historiography Project shut down

We've just received word that the web hosting company for the Holocaust Historiography Project (Doteasy, in Canada) has received a complaint against our site by the Friends of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, and as a result shut down the HHP site.

It's certain to be a scramble to find a new host, but we're hoping to be back on-line in a couple of weeks. Some of that time will be taken up locating a suitable host, and then there's the matter of getting all the "pointers" at Internet routing stations switched over so visitors are directed to the new location, which always takes a couple of days at best.

We'll post a message here once the site is up again.

See you all later!

Friday, December 09, 2005

Iran president expresses doubt Holocaust happened

Although some revisionists may rejoice at the comments made by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad this past Thursday, the reality is that the President of Iran makes for an unlikely and unattractive "bed-fellow." Iran has been noted for human rights abuses and although their constitution guarantees freedom of religion, deviations from Shi'a Islam, the state religion are dealt with harshly. Christians are discriminated against in education, employment and property ownership and there have even been cases of Pastors being murdered. Pastors are even forbidden to preach in Farsi (the official language of Iran.)

In October, Ahmadinejad called for Israel to be "wiped off the map." Rhetoric like this should be condemned. The Islamic world needs to recognize that Israel exists and will continue to do so. Beyond that, they have a right to exist. Irregardless of the Holocaust or any other issue there are millions of people who live in this land and have had parents and grandparents who have lived there. Iran and all Islamic extremists need to work towards living together peacefully with Israel rather than dreaming of a time that the country will no longer exist. Israel, of course, shares the same need.

To his defense, Ahmadinejad doesn't appear to have said that the Holocaust didn't take place. Like anyone who expresses doubt over any aspect of this tragic event, the immediate charge is that they don't believe in it at all. Ahamdinejad's comments appear to be the result of the recent incarceration of several revisionists in Europe: namely David Irving, Germar Rudolf, Ernst Zuendel, and Siegfried Verbeke. Certainly the persecution of these "thought-criminals" adds fuel to the fire of those who would suggest that Zionist power "rules the world." The actions by various European states (most recently Germany and Austria) exactly fan the fire of anti-Semitism and age-old conspiracy theories.

The article goes on to say that "Religious hardliners in Iran do not publicly deny the Holocaust occurred but say its scale has been exaggerated to justify the creation of Israel and continued Western support for it." Again, it is important to note that no one denies that the Holocaust occurred. This argument suggests that doubt of any aspect of the Holocaust amounts to the denial of the entirety. In fact, revisionists do claim that the scale has been exaggerated and many have also made the connection to Western support for Israel.

We would all do well to recall Harry Elmer Barnes' warning at the conclusion of "Revisionism and the Promotion of Peace:"

"Unless and until we can break through the historical blackout, now supported even by public policy, and enable the peoples of the world to know the facts concerning international relations during the last quarter of a century, there can be no real hope for the peace, security and prosperity which the present triumphs of science and technology could make possible. The well-being of the human race, if not its very survival, is very literally dependent on the triumph of Revisionism."

Iran president expresses doubt holocaust happened
Dec 8, 2005

By Paul Hughes

TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Thursday expressed doubt the Holocaust took place and suggested the Jewish state of Israel be moved to Europe.

His comments, reported by Iran's official IRNA news agency from a news conference he gave in the Saudi Arabian city of Mecca, follow his call in October for Israel to be "wiped off the map", which sparked widespread international outrage.

The latest comments also provoked quick condemnation. German Chancellor Angela Merkel called them "totally unacceptable" and British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said "I condemn them unreservedly. They have no place in civilized political debate."

Ahmadinejad was quoted by IRNA as saying: "Some European countries insist on saying that Hitler killed millions of innocent Jews in furnaces and they insist on it to the extent that if anyone proves something contrary to that they condemn that person and throw them in jail."

"Although we don't accept this claim, if we suppose it is true, our question for the Europeans is: is the killing of innocent Jewish people by Hitler the reason for their support to the occupiers of Jerusalem?" he said.

"If the Europeans are honest they should give some of their provinces in Europe -- like in Germany, Austria or other countries -- to the Zionists and the Zionists can establish their state in Europe. You offer part of Europe and we will support it."

The Nazis killed some 6 million Jews during their 1933-1945 rule. Ahmadinejad's remarks drew swift rebukes from Israel and Washington.


Raanan Gissin, a spokesman for Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, said in Tel Aviv Ahmadinejad was voicing "the consensus that exists in many circles in the Arab world that the Jewish people ... do not have the right to establish a Jewish, democratic state in their ancestral homeland".

"Just to remind Mr. Ahmadinejad, we've been here long before his ancestors were here," Gissin said. "Therefore, we have a birthright to be here in the land of our forefathers and to live here. Thank God we have the capability to deter and to prevent such a statement from becoming a reality."

Deputy U.S. State Department spokesman Adam Ereli called the remarks "appalling and reprehensible".

"They certainly don't inspire hope among any of us in the international community that the government in Iran is prepared to engage as a responsible member of the community," he said.

A news conference with French President Jacques Chirac near Berlin, Merkel also said: "With our historical responsibility in mind, I can only say that we reject them (Ahmadinejad's comments) in the harshest possible terms.

"We will do everything to make it clear that Israel's right to existence is in no way endangered. I am firmly convinced that a majority in the international community has a similar opinion on this issue," she said. Chirac said he agreed completely.

Religious hardliners in Iran do not publicly deny the Holocaust occurred but say its scale has been exaggerated to justify the creation of Israel and continued Western support for it.

Close allies when Iran was ruled by the U.S.-backed Shah, Iran and Israel have become implacable foes since Iran's 1979 Islamic revolution.

Israel accuses Iran of giving arms and funding to militant Palestinian groups such as Islamic Jihad and of building nuclear weapons. Iran denies the charges.

Tehran calls Israel a "terrorist state" and has developed missiles which can reach it. It says it would use them if Israel, itself believed to be nuclear armed, tried to bomb Iranian nuclear facilities.

(Additional reporting by Jeffrey Heller in Jerusalem)

Monday, December 05, 2005


This is a call for Austria (and the other countries of Europe which have thoughtcrime laws in place) to free David Irving and other historical dissidents by Christmas. Austria could minimize its shame by releasing Irving by Christmas. Germany could minimize its shame by releasing Germar Rudolf by Christmas as well.

Let us recall the Christmas truce of 1914. As the ravages of World War One entered into its first Christmas season, the soldiers of the Western Front laid down their arms on Christmas Day and met in No Man's Land. It is said that they exchanged food and cigarettes. They played football (soccer).

There are many accounts of the Christmas truce, the most famous of which concern the meeting of British and German forces. Some narratives tell of British troops hearing their German counterparts singing Christmas carols and joining in, while a private in the Royal Welch Fusiliers told of how both sides erected signs wishing the other a 'Merry Christmas'. From these small starts some men crossed the lines with their hands up, and troops from the opposing side went to meet them. By the time officers realised what was happening the initial meetings had been made, and most commanders either turned a blind eye or happily joined in.

The fraternization lasted, in many areas, for the whole of Christmas day. Food and supplies were exchanged on a one to one basis, while in some areas men borrowed tools and equipment from the enemy, in order to quickly improve their own living conditions. Many games of football were played using whatever would suffice for a ball, while bodies that had become trapped within No Man's Land were buried.

End the senseless hatred that is Thoughtcrimes law. Free the political and historical dissidents of Europe. Free David Irving and Germar Rudolf by Christmas! Let us pray for peace and freedom this Christmas season.

Hatred will only inspire more hatred. Austria needs to end its hate now and move forward in the proper spirit of reconciliation. Austria (and Germany) would do well to read the words of Germar Rudolf from his banned and burned book, "Dissecting the Holocaust,"

"Reconciliation can progress only in a climate which fosters speaking from the heart and listening with an open mind and spirit; where opinions are expressed rather than choked back or even suppressed; where points of contention are discussed in a civilized manner and not hidden by hushing-up, distractionism, or violence."

Irving finds his books in his jail library

This interesting story comes from the Index for Censorship. Find the Website below. It is probably no real surprise that David Irving would find a few of his books in the prison library where he is currently being held for thoughtcrimes committed in Austria. Clearly the books were in the library as they were both best selling historical titles. What is most disturbing here is the final line: Adam said they [the books] would be disposed of. Perhaps Irving's jailers should actually read what Irving wrote. The imprisonment of David Irving shames Austria. It shames the United Kingdom as well as they sit back and let one of their own be persecuted for uttering "offensive" ideas over a decade ago.

Irving finds his books in his jail library

British historian David Irving found copies of his own banned books in a prison library while in custody on charges of Holocaust denial in Austria.
Irving, 67, found copies of Hitler’s War and The Destruction of Convoy PQ-17 in the Graz prison library after asking for something to read. Hitler's War triggered huge controversy when published in 1977 for suggesting that Hitler had no knowledge of the Holocaust. The Destruction of Convoy PQ-17 was withdrawn in 1970 after Irving was successfully sued by a former naval captain he had accused in the book. Jail director Josef Adam said it was "not possible" to know how the books had ended up in the 6,400-volume library, reported Britain’s Daily Telegraph. Irving signed both books before returning them; Adam said they would be ‘disposed of’.

Original Article