Welcome to our
Introduction to Historical Revisionism!

In the following text you will find the questions which are
most frequently asked about Holocaust Revisionism. You will find our answers by
simply clicking your mouse on the question. We also offer a leaflet for free download
which summarizes Holocaust Revisionism in a nutshell. This is the perfect
flyer for a brief introduction and as a handout to others. In case you have
further questions, do not hesitate to contact us at: Castle Hill Publishers, PO
Box 118, Hastings TN34 3ZQ, England;  Email: mailto:[email-masked]. Castle Hill wishes you a
lot of worthwhile discoveries while browsing through the following page.

You
can also  download this brochure as a file in PDF-format (2
MB)

Order a Printed Version of this Brochure from our UK Store |
from our US
Store

Questions and Answers

What is Revisionism?

Why is historical
Revisionism important?

Why is Holocaust
Revisionism necessary?

What is meant by "The
Holocaust" or "Shoah?"

What does Holocaust
Revisionism claim?

What about those
pictures of mountains of dead bodies in the concentration camps?

Does it really matter
whether prisoners died from disease or poison gas?

Does it matter how many
Jews were killed during the Third Reich since even one thousand would have
been too many?

Whatever the
circumstances, don't Jewish victims deserve respect and compensation?

Who are the Holocaust
Revisionists?

What do Holocaust
Revisionists want?

Is Holocaust
Revisionism illegal?

Where can I learn more
about Holocaust Revisionism?

If you have further questions, please do not hesitate to ask:
mailto:[email-masked]

What is Revisionism?

The word "Revisionism" is derived from the Latin word "revidere," which
means to view again. The revision of long held theories is entirely normal. It
occurs in the natural sciences as well as the social sciences, to which the
discipline of history belongs. Science is not a static condition. It is a
process, specifically the creating of knowledge by searching for evidence.
When ongoing research finds new evidence, or when critical researchers
discover mistakes in old explanations, it often happens that old theories have
to be changed or even abandoned.

By "Revisionism" we mean critically examining established
theories and hypotheses in order to test their validity. Scientists need to
know when new evidence modifies or contradicts old theories; indeed, one of
their main obligations is to test time-honored conceptions and attempt to
refute them. Only in an open society in which individuals are free to
challenge prevailing theories can we ascertain the validity of these theories,
and be confident that we are approaching the truth. For a fuller discussion of
this, the reader should acquaint himself with the essay by Dr. C. Nordbruch in the
Neuer Zürcher Zeitung of 12 June 1999.

Return to
Questions

So far, it was believed that the first humans settled
in the Americas some 20,000 years ago. New archeological findings,
however, suggest that humans lived here for some 250,000, see the
article by V.
Steen-McIntyre. (We are working on getting this online in
English)

Why is Historical Revisionism important?

Like other scientific concepts, our historical concepts are
subject to critical consideration. This is especially true when new evidence
is discovered. We must constantly re-examine historical theories, particularly
in case:

We are dealing with events, which occurred in the far distant past. In
this case our problem is that we have very little evidence on which to base
our theories.

We are dealing with events, which occurred in the recent past. In this
case, our problem is that we must contend with political influence, which
derives from these events.

When we are dealing with the distant past, even a small piece
of new evidence can profoundly change our views. For example, historians are
now in process of revising the traditional assumption that Europeans
discovered America just five centuries ago. Recent archeological discoveries
show not only that the Vikings reach America in the Tenth Century, but humans
with European characteristics were living on the American continent ten
thousand years ago. (For more on this subject, refer to John Nugent's article
"Who were the real
indigenous peoples of America?" (We are working on getting this online in
English).

As for the recent past, the truism "the victor writes the
history of the war" still holds; and victor is hardly ever objective. Revision
of victor-history is usually not possible until the confrontation between
victor and vanquished has ceased to exist; and sometimes these confrontations
last for centuries. Since historiography has negligible monetary significance,
almost all historical institutes are financed by their respective governments.
Free and independent historical institutes are practically nonexistent. In
contemporary history, in which individual governments have huge political
interests, we must be skeptical toward the official historiography. Another
truism reminds us that "whoever pays the fiddler, calls the tune." These
reasons explain why Historical Revisionism is important and why the rulers of
the world tend to oppose it.

Return to
Questions

Why is Holocaust Revisionism necessary?

For the non-Jew, the Holocaust is a historical event and not
a matter of religion. As such it is subject to the same kind of research and
scrutiny as other past events, and so our conceptions of the Holocaust must be
subjected to critical investigation. If new evidence necessitates a change of
our view of the Holocaust, then a change must take place. The same holds true
when old assumptions are proven false. There is nothing reprehensible about
questioning the accuracy of scientific assertions and attempting to deny their
validity. Therefore, it is not reprehensible to approach prevailing
conceptions of the Holocaust with skepticism, as long as it is done
objectively and we have valid reasons o be skeptical.

Most people know that the powers existing
today, particularly in Germany, are opposed to any critical approach to the
Holocaust. In fact, the present German government prosecutes such approaches
legally. Here then is an answer to the question of why Revisionism is
important (Question 2)
The German government obviously intends to maintain the present concept of
Holocaust with all the official power at its command. One reason for
this is the massive political and financial interests of those religious
groupings so meticulously described by the US professor of political science
N. G. Finkelstein in his book, "The Holocaust Industry" which we strongly
recommend to everyone. Because of widespread inventions and distortions of the
Holocaust, Prof. Finkelstein laments the fact that there are not more
Holocaust skeptics. And Prof. Raul Hilberg, the leading Holocaust specialist,
repeatedly states that superficiality and
inadequate
quality control are the greatest problems in the field of Holocaust
research. It is clear that Holocaust skeptics are badly needed.

But this is not just about the special interests of religious
and financial groupings, however. We must contend with the entire postwar
order, which was created by the victorious Allies. The very credibility of the
victors' version of history is at risk. The Holocaust is the central tile in
the mosaic of their version of history. In addition, we must deal with the
political and cultural hegemony of internationalist and egalitarian circles.
For egalitarianists, the conventional Holocaust image is an extremely useful
symbol in their effort to suppress ethnic, regional and national struggles for
independence. It does not matter whether these struggles take place in Asia,
Arabia, Africa, South America or Europe. After all, struggles for national
independence assume that nationalism is a good thing. For egalitarianists
nationalism is evil because once upon a time, nationalism led to the gas
chambers of Auschwitz…

German politicians know very well that Germany would be
subjected to tremendous pressure if it allowed anything like critical
consideration of the Holocaust. Finally the credulity of is at risk of all
those who built their world upon the moralistic foundation of "Holocaust" as
well as those who face complete moral and social bankruptcy if they face their
doubts. There are profound psychological and egotistical reasons which make it
impossible for many intellectuals to entertain doubts about the Holocaust,
even to themselves.

However, the circumstance of whether one is for or against
internationalism and egalitarianism is irrelevant. So is one's opinion
regarding the class games people play, or the spiritual orientation of the
powerful. The significant fact is that there are extremely powerful groupings
which are determined to hinder critical consideration of the Holocaust.
Throughout the world, the media heap abuse on those who express doubt about
the orthodox version of the Holocaust. In the German speaking countries,
publicly expressing doubt about the Holocaust is a political offense
punishable by long prison sentences (Section 130 Paragraph 3 of
German Penal Code; Section 3h of Austrian Code; Section 216 of Swiss
Code.) This alone should be enough to arouse the suspicions of anyone who has
the capacity to think critically. It should make one ask why the power elite
still have such drastic need of hate propaganda left over from World War
II.
The Catholic
pastor Viktor R. Knirsch of Kahlenbergerdorf in Austria has given us some
insightful remarks on this subject (portrait to the right):

"It is the right and the duty of everyone who seeks the
truth to doubt, investigate and consider all available evidence. Wherever
this doubting and investigating is forbidden; wherever authorities demand
unquestioning belief -- there is evidence of a profane arrogance, which
arouses our suspicions. If those whose contentions are questioned had truth
on their side, they would patiently answer all questions. Certainly they
would not continue to conceal evidence and documents which pertain to the
controversy. If those who demand belief are lying, however, they will call
for a judge. By this ye shall know them. He who tells the truth is calm and
composed, but he who lies demands worldly justice."

To conclude our answer of this question let us consider a
slogan of an advertisement that caused a scandal in Germany in summer 2001.
Shortly before that, the German government had finally decided, after many
years of discussion, to erect a huge Holocaust memorial in the center of
Germany's capital Berlin. In a provocative advertisement to raise funds for
this memorial, which was intended to convince people why this memorial is
important, several prominent German personalities made the following
statements (see picture):

"'the holocaust never
happened'
There are still a great many who
believe it never happened, and in twenty years there will be more.
Hence,
donate for the memorial for the murdered Jews of
Europe."

The first phrase in huge letters was meant to be a quote form a
"Holocaust denier", but since the explanation underneath it was almost
illegibly small and not very clear, the storm of protest that broke out after
the campaign with this ad was started brought it to an immediate end.

Anyway, this ad made a prophecy: That there would be even
more "deniers" in twenty years than there are already today. There are good
reasons for the premonitions of these German personalities. Our knowledge of
all historical events is increasing with the passage of time. This happens not
in spite of the fact that eyewitnesses are dying, but rather because of that
fact. Participants in historical events have a personal interest which tends
to distort their accounts of those events. It will not be possible to overcome
this tendency of subjectivity and distortion until we no longer have to defer
to these persons and their lobby groups, especially when these groups have
great wealth and political influence.

If the ad's statement is true that in 20 years still more
people will believe that "the holocaust never happened," then the reason is to
be found not in these non-believing people themselves, but in our expanding
knowledge about the Holocaust and the diminishing influence of those persons
who have non-objective interests regarding the historiography on the
Holocaust.

It would be absurd to claim that, just because all the
eyewitnesses of mass executions during the French Revolution have died, the
number of skeptics about these murders would increase more and more. Our
knowledge of historical events does not depend upon living eyewitnesses; on
the contrary, it is most reliable where it can be sustained without such
witnesses. Doubts about a historical event develop only if there are
objective reasons for such doubts.

Return to
Questions

What is meant by "Holocaust" or "Shoah?"

By "Holocaust" (the Greek word for sacrifice of a burnt
offering) as well as "Shoah," which is the Hebrew word for "Catastrophe," we
mean the near total extermination of a distinct group of persons through
violence. Here we are referring to Jews who lived in areas controlled by the
Third Reich. Loss of citizenship, deportation, and incarceration with forced
labor, things which have always existed and exist today, should not be
included since they do not result in the physical destruction of these groups.
In the mind of the public the opinion is often created that simply depriving
Jews of civil rights during the Third Reich was part of the Holocaust. But if
this were true, then depriving blacks in South Africa until the end of last
century, Palestinians in Israel and the territories occupied by it, or the
(partly) deprivation of civil right of Blacks and Native Americans in the USA
until the middle of the 20th century would also have to be descirbed as part
of a Holocaust.

The common historical image of the Holocaust against
the Jews is postulated on the following specific points:

An intention on the part of the National Socialist government to
physically exterminate Jews;

An actual plan of the National Socialist government to physically
exterminate the Jews;

A governmental agency and a budget to carry out this plan;

Technically refined methods of mass killing to achieve this goal,
whereby homicidal gas chambers as well as mass shootings behind the Russian
front would play a major role;

Techniques for disposing of millions of bodies; that is, crematories or
pyres with adequate capacity and fuel.

Such allegations of mass murder in fast acting homicidal gas
chambers followed by disposal of the bodies in adjoining crematoriums, that
is, expertly planned and efficiently functioning assembly lines for homicide,
are described as having been "unique" in human history. They distinguish the
Holocaust from all atrocities that happened heretofore.

Return to
Questions

What does Holocaust Revisionism claim?

First of all, because of false representations by the media,
it is necessary that we first clarify what Holocaust Revisionism does
not maintain:

it does not deny that Jews were persecuted under the Third
Reich;

it does not deny that Jews were deprived of civil rights;

it does not deny that Jews were deported;

it does not deny the existence of Jewish ghettos;

it does not deny the existence of concentration camps;

it does not deny the existence of crematoriums in
concentration camps;

it does not deny that Jews died for a great number of
reasons;

it does not deny that other minorities were also
persecuted such as gypsies, Jehovah's Witnesses, homosexuals, and political
dissenters;

and finally, it does not deny that all the above mentioned
things were unjust.

None of these crimes of the National Socialist regime are
doubted by Holocaust revisionists. In the view of the Revisionists, however,
all these injustices have nothing to do with the Holocaust, which is
defined as planned and organized mass murder, carried out specifically in
homicidal gas chambers (see Question 4).

Holocaust revisionists believes the following to be correct:

There was no National Socialist order for the physical extermination of
Jews (cf. R. Widmann);

Likewise, there was no National-Socialist plan for physical
extermination of Jews;

There was no German organization and no budget for carrying out the
alleged extermination plan. Consider the statement by the world-renowned
Holocaust researcher R.
Hilberg:

Raul
Hilberg

»But what began in 1941
was a process of destruction not planned in advance, not organized centrally
by any agency. There was no blueprint and there was no budget for
destructive measures [of the Juden]. They [the measures]were
taken step by step. Thus came about not so much a plan being carried out but
an incredible meeting of minds, a consensus mind-reading by a far-flung
[German] bureaucracy.«);

In detailed investigations of former German concentration camps, expert
researchers have established: The internment camps had no homicidal gas
chambers or sophisticated methods for mass murder (see G. Rudolf, J. Graf
(summarized in English by Mattogno, C.
Mattogno, F. Berg). Furthermore, the reports of mass shootings were
greatly exaggerated and taken out of context (see H.
Tiedemann und G. Rudolf/S. Schröder);

There were neither adequate industrial facilities nor sufficient fuel to
cremate such a huge number of corpses. In fact, the capacity of the
crematories was barely sufficient to cremate the bodies of those who died
from starvation and epidemics (see  the investigations by C.
Mattogno and A. Neumaier).

There is no documentation for the existence of homicidal gas
chambers (see G.
Rudolf and W. Rademacher), and no material traces of alleged mass
murders (see sources given under nos. 4 & 5, R.
Krege as well as J.C.
Ball (also here)). All the "proofs" rely on eyewitness accounts
only, whose unreliability is widely acknowledged (see F.
Faurisson, M. Köhler and J. Graf).

Despite massive observation by spies and resistance groups in areas in
the near vicinity of the German concentration camps, all of Germany's
wartime enemies conducted themselves as if no exterminations of Jews were
taking place. The charges of genocide were not raised until after Germany's
defeat, when there was no German government to dispute them (see A. Butz).

Statistical investigations of living Jews worldwide show clearly that
the losses of this ethnic group during the Second World War were nowhere
near six million. The exact number is probably well under half a million
(see the researche by W.N. Sanning and G.
Rudolf)

If you want to read a brief summary of revisionist viewpoints, we recommend
our leaflet which you
can download, print, copy, and distribute as you like. Furthermore, our Revisionist Archive offers a broad
variety of introductory
articles available on this website and elsewhere.

Return to
Questions

What about those pictures of mountains of dead bodies in the
concentration camps?

Photograph of victims of the
typhus epidemic in a mass grave on the concentration camp in
Bergen-Belsen, taken by the British
Army.

Here is a photograph of victims of the typhus epidemic in a mass grave on
the concentration camp in Bergen-Belsen, taken by the British Army. It is
typical of a large number of such photos often shown on TV Holocaust
documentaries either without commentary or else with allegations that the dead
are victims of the Holocaust. In fact, it is a photograph of victims of an
epidemic which occurred at war's end. The cause of death is evident from the
condition of the corpses. If they had been gassed they would not be emaciated
and if they had died of starvation they would have swollen joints and
stomachs. Any medical professional will see at first glance that these people
died of typhus.

All photographs of heaps of corpses were taken in Western camps around the
end of the war, such as Dachau, Bergen-Belsen, and Buchenwald, where
historians now agree no mass murders took place. Significantly, there are no
such photographs taken at the camps in which mass murder is alleged to have
occurred (Auschwitz, Treblinka, Belzec, Sobibor, Chelmno, Majdanek.) These
eastern camps were all in areas which came under Soviet control at war's end.
It is very telling that the Soviets released no pictures of mass graves or
heaps of corpses and allowed no journalists, medical professionals, or other
experts to examine the camps. Since the end of the 1980s, Revisionists have
been investigating these sites for evidence of mass murder, but the officials
have obstructed their efforts by all possible means.

In the absence of authentic photographs documenting mass murder, it
frequently happens that photographs of those who died in the Western camps at
war's end of malnutrition and typhus are presented as evidence of deliberate
mass murder. To be sure, the hellish conditions in the Western camps at war's
end convinced many Allied observers that mass murder had taken place, as
initial reports indicate. In reality, these conditions resulted from a
situation for which the German government was not solely responsible. Toward
the end of the war, Himmler illogically ordered the evacuation of the eastern
camps as the Red Army approached, which led to hopeless overcrowding in the
western camps. By that time, Allied bombing had completely destroyed the
German infrastructure, making it impossible to supply the camps with food,
medicines, and sanitation supplies. Misunderstandings about the causes of the
massive die-off continue to this day, especially among Americans.

The respected leftist historian Norbert Frei has given the following reason
for misinterpretation, (from Vierteljahrshefte für Zeitgeschichte 35
(1987) page 400):

"The shock of these discoveries [of mountains of corpses] often
led to false conclusions which turned out to be enduring."

There is no denying that a government which imprisons people in camps is
responsible for them and so the unjustly imprisoned were therefore victims of
the Third Reich, even if they died "only" of disease. However, one should not
overlook the fact that by the war's end, mountains of corpses had become
commonplace throughout Germany. In German cities there were 600,000 victims of
Allied terror bombings. Millions more died of starvation and disease, which
continued rampant through 1949. In Eastern Germany and Czechoslovakia, three
million Germans were murdered by Serbs, Czechs, Poles, and Russians in the
course of history's bloodiest ethnic cleansing. In the POW camps of the
western Allies, a million young German men died and millions more vegetated.
Hundreds of thousands more were shipped to the labor camps of the Soviet GULag
never to be seen again. But the media show only one variety of corpse piles,
those in the concentration camps. We should all ask ourselves why this is
so.

Should the dignity and respect, which we owe the victims of atrocities,
depend on their nationality?

Return to
Questions

Does it really matter whether prisoners died from disease or poison
gas?

From the point of view of each victim and its personal
suffering there is no difference. One could even make the point that it would
be preferable to die quickly from poison than to die slowly from an epidemic
disease. However, in the present discussion we are not focusing on the
intensity of suffering of the victims, which no one questions.

Here we are concerned with the historical accuracy of certain
allegations and the moral guilt of the so-called German "nation of
perpetrators" as well as the consequences which resulted from these
allegations. Considered from the point of view of the historian as well as the
perpetrators, there is a tremendous difference between being victims of raging
epidemics and victims of planned industrial mass murder in chemical
slaughterhouses designed specifically for homicide. Epidemics, starvation, and
other catastrophes resulting from poor treatment, political mistakes, and
military defeats are recurrent in the history of mankind.

Here we are concerned with the historical and
moral uniqueness of industrial mass annihilation of a specific group of the
population. The entire German nation has been held responsible for this unique
crime, not just individual perpetrators. This is the source of today's
negative treatment of the Germans ("collective responsibility" and "hereditary
guilt"). It is also the source of the privileged treatment of the actual or
alleged victims of genocide. We strongly suggest you read what Norman
Finkelstein has to say on this subject.

Return to
Questions

Does it really matter how many Jews were killed during the Third Reich,
since even one thousand would have been too many?

Doubtless it is correct that even one is one too many, and
really one must go even farther than that: even those measures of Third Reich
persecution which did not result in outright deaths were in every respect
unacceptable. But this is not a valid argument against the statistical
investigation of the 'whether' and 'how' of the destruction of the Jews, and
for three reasons.

First, this objection does not satisfy simply for the reason that it is
precisely the number of victims that has been considered sacrosanct for
decades. If the number of victims did not matter, it would not be necessary to
protect it as a social and even criminal taboo. Evidently there really is more
to the six-million figure than merely the fact that it includes a great many
individual fates: what is at stake is a symbol not to be easily relinquished,
since justified doubts about the number might quickly lead to further
undesirable skepticism about further subsections of the Holocaust complex.
While not wishing to deny the victims the tragedy of their individual fates in
any way, science must nevertheless insist that numbers must always be open to
discussion. It is downright irrational that those, on the one hand, who doubt
the six-million figure are socially persecuted or even subjected to criminal
litigation while society and the justice system, on the other hand, react to
valid arguments against this selfsame six-million figure by suddenly declaring
this figure to be irrelevant and insisting instead on the dignity of even the
very first victim. Is the six-million figure a standard deserving of
protection by criminal law, or is it irrelevant? It cannot be both at
once.

Secondly (and the most important argument:) the ethically correct
evaluation that even one victim would be too many must not be a pretext for
prohibiting scientific research. This is intolerable for the simple reason
that science must always be allowed to find precise answers. What would we
think of an official who demanded that a physicist not be allowed to determine
the exact value of his stress experiment, because even a small value would be
bad enough? A physicist subjected to such an absurd demand would quickly
arrive at incorrect results and would be a threat to any company that hired
him. The same holds true for the historian. If the historian is forbidden to
conduct critical investigations because they might be considered morally
untenable, then we have to assume that the results of such skewed
historiography are unreliable. And since our knowledge of contemporary history
exerts a direct influence on politics, our public policies are mistaken and
unreliable as well. It is the key function and responsibility of every branch
of science to provide accurate figures and values. The principles which hold
true for engineering, physics, and chemistry can not suddenly be abandoned in
historiography for political reasons -- unless one is intellectually prepared
to retreat deep into the darkest middle ages.

Thirdly, and more importantly, the morally correct view that even one
victim is one too many cannot on principle be a barrier to the scientific
investigation of a crime which is generally called so morally reprehensible as
to be unique and unparalleled in the history of mankind. An allegedly uniquely
reprehensible crime must be open to a procedure that is standard for any other
crime as well, namely that it is - and must be - investigated in detail. I
would go even further: anyone who postulates a crime to be unique must be
prepared for an uniquely thorough investigation of the alleged crime before
its uniqueness is accepted as fact. If a person or group blocks investigation
of an allegedly unique crime on grounds of moral outrage, then that person or
group is guilty of a unique crime itself. This unique crime consists of first
denying defense against preposterous allegations, then disallowing criticism
of such tyrannical methods on a pretext of unusual guilt. This was the precise
fate of Germany following World War II, with the result that Germans were
first brutalized, then slandered and denied opportunity to defend themselves.
The treatment of vanquished Germany by the victorious Allies has been truly
unique in modern times since the same Allies otherwise allow even the most
notorious murderers opportunity to defend themselves in court.

Return to
Questions

Whatever the circumstances, don't Jewish victims deserve respect
and compensation?

Everyone who is treated unjustly is entitled to reparations and every
victim of crime deserves respect commensurate with human dignity. Revisionism
is concerned solely with determination of objective historic fact and has no
desire to deny either respect or restitution to anyone who has suffered
injustice. In case the evidence shows that a particular historical event did
not have anywhere near as many victims as was previously believed, this is
simply a historical determination, which has no effect on the fate of anyone.
Objective evidence could even be of assistance to newly discovered
victims.

Since the end of World War II, Germany has paid well over 100,000,000,000
(one hundred billion) marks in reparations to Jewish individuals and
institutions. In the course of these reparations, over five and a half million
applications by Holocaust survivors have been processed. Obviously, the number
of survivors is very large. Since the German obligation has no statute of
limitations, demands for reparation have been uninterrupted and have even
escalated in recent years. However, we are not addressing the question of
whether those who are demanding still more money are entitled to it, after
fifty-five years. Much more important is the question of why the present
day German taxpayer should pay these sums. 99.9% of all German
taxpayers today are sixty-five or younger and thus were at most small children
when World War II ended.

Let us direct a somewhat provocative question to you, dear reader:

How many Jews have you murdered in your lifetime, how many foreigners have
you enslaved, how many members of minorities have you persecuted?

It is an absurd question, of course, because the answer is always "none"
(at least I hope so). Why then should German taxpayers contribute billions
upon billions in reparations? Why are they condemned to eternal extortion,
penance, and humility? Does anyone really wonder why taxes and unemployment in
Germany are constantly rising?

Perhaps you remember a basic Christian principle which is the law in every
constitutional state: accountability does not extend to our relatives: there
is no such thing as hereditary guilt! In Germany, this principle is violated.
In case of Germany, someone is cashing in on the alleged guilt of German
parents, grandparents, great-grandparents.

In passing, wouldn't it be interesting to know when the millions of Germans
who were exploited as slaves by Frenchmen, Dutchmen, Englishmen, Belgians,
Jugoslavs, Poles, Danes, Russians, Czechs, for years and even decades after
the end of WWII, will finally be allowed to claim reparations? When will the
12 million eastern German victims of ethnic cleansing and the survivors of the
three million who were murdered in the process, the six hundred thousand
victims of Allied terror bombings, the five million who died of starvation
under Allied blockage and de-industrialization and Eisenhower's withholding of
food to them, be given proper memorialization? (Please refer to the work by J.
Bacque.)

Do not all victims of injustice deserve the same respect and reparations?
Or is it the case that some are more equal than others?

Return to
Questions

Who are the Holocaust Revisionists?

Holocaust Revisionists are not a homogenous group.

Our numbers include Jews (Josef G. Burg, Roger-Guy Dommergue,
David Cole, Stephen Hayward); Christians (Germar Rudolf, Michael A. Hoffman,
Robert Countess); Muslims (Ibrahim Alloush, Ahmed Rami) and Atheists (Bradley
Smith, Robert Faurisson).

Paul Rassinier, a professor of geography and history,
was a fighter of the French Resistance who spent many years in German
concentration camps. He disputed the misrepresentations of fellow
inmates E. Kogon and others and thereby became the founder of Holocaust
Revisionism.

Some Revisionists suffered persecution by the National
Socialist regime as well as internment in concentration camps (Paul Rassinier,
Josef G. Burg). Others are Army veterans of World War II, from both the German
and Allied armies (Werner Rademacher, Wilhelm Stäglich, Douglas Collins.)

Some Revisionists are professors (Prof. Robert Faurisson,
Prof. Arthur R. Butz, Prof. Christian Lindtner, Prof. Costas Zaverdinos) and
some have Ph.D degrees (Dr. Wilhelm Stäglich, Dr. Robert Countess, Dr. Stephen
Hayward, Dr. Herbert Tiedemann). Some are Diploma Chemists, Physicists and
Engineers (Michael Gärtner, Germar Rudolf, Arnulf Neumaier, Friedrich Berg),
Historians (Mark Weber, Robert Countess, Carlo Mattogno), as well as teachers
in other fields, such as Jürgen Graf.

The ranks of Holocaust Revisionists include Communists and
Socialists (Paul Rassinier, Roger Garaudy), moderate Leftists (Pierre
Guillaume, Serge Thion), Liberals (Andrew Allen, David Cole, Bradley Smith,
Richard Widmann), Conservatives (Germar Rudolf, Carlo Mattogno, Werner
Rademacher), Rightists (Udo Walendy, Mark Weber) and National Socialists
(Ernst Zündel). Since the author does not consider it important to classify
revisionists according to political orientation, he can not vouch for the
correctness of these designations.

Included also are Frenchmen (Robert Faurisson, Pierre
Guillaume, Roger Garaudy, Paul Rassinier, Vincent Reynouard, Jean Plantin),
Americans (Bradley Smith, Mark Weber, Arthur Butz, Richard Widmann, Fredrick
Leuchter), Germans (Germar Rudolf, Werner Rademacher, Michael Gärtner, Arnulf
Neumaier, Wilhelm Stäglich), Swiss (Jürgen Graf, Arthur Vogt), Italians (Carlo
Mattogno), Spaniards (Enrique Aynat), Jordanians (Ibrahim Alloush), Moroccans
(Ahmed Rami), Swedes, Danes, Britons, Poles, and Russians, to name just a
few.

(Please refer to the author index for the books and articles
by the above writers)

Return to
Questions

What do Holocaust Revisionists Want?

Since the Revisionists comprise such a heterogeneous group
(see no. 10), it is
impossible to state what "the" revisionists hope to accomplish. Obviously, any
cliché about revisionists must therefore be false and misleading. However,
revisionists do have one thing in common: the determination to demonstrate the
correctness of their views on the Holocaust and to convince others.
Revisionists would probably quarrel endlessly about everything else,
particularly if they would try to seek a common political denominator. Thus it
is false and misleading to ascribe a uniform political agenda to them. The
political views of Revisionists are indeed varied and different.

In contrast, the governments and media of most western
societies publicize the cliché that all Revisionists are right wing extremists
who are attempting to rehabilitate the National Socialist regime in order to
usher in a new authoritarian government of the right. This may be true for
Revisionists of the extreme right wing, but they are a small minority within
Revisionist ranks.

Perhaps a few prominent examples will illustrate the
political variety of Revisionist opinion:

Paul Rassinier: what would motivate a French Communist who was interned
in a German concentration camp on account of his activities in the Resistance,
to rehabilitate National Socialism in Germany?

Josef G. Burg: What would motivate a Jew who suffered under the
occupation of both the Germans and Russians during the Second World
War?

David Cole: What would motivate a liberal young American of the Jewish
faith?

Fredrick Leuchter: What would motivate an entirely nonpolitical
American expert in the technology of gas execution chambers?

Pierre Guillaume, Serge Thion: What would motivate left-anarchist
Frenchmen to rehabilitate National Socialism in Germany.

Roger Garaudy: What would motivate a longtime prominent French
Communist?

Bradley Smith, Richard Widmann: what would motivate liberal
Americans?

Vincent Reynouard, Jean Plantin, Germar Rudolf: young liberal and
conservative European professionals, born in the mid-60s. What would motivate
them to rehabilitate National Socialism?

Does it really matter what a Revisionist is trying to achieve
with his political or other ideas? Let's quote Germar Rudolf
on this point:

"To everyone who has ever suspected that revisionists
are motivated by a desire to whitewash National Socialism, or restore the
acceptability of right-wing political systems, or assist in a breakthrough
of Nationalism, I would like to say the following:

While researching historical events, our highest goal must
be at all times to discover how it actually was--as the 19th century German
historian Leopold Ranke maintained. Historians should not place research in
the service of making criminal accusations against, for example, Genghis
Khan and the Mongol hordes, nor to whitewash any of their wrong-doings.
Anybody insisting that research be barred from exonerating Genghis Khan of
criminal accusations would be the object of ridicule and would be subject to
the suspicion that he was, in fact, acting out of political motives. If this
were not so, why would anyone insist that our historical view of Genghis
Khan forever be defined solely by Khan's victims and enemies?

The same reasoning applies to Hitler and the Third Reich.
Both revisionists and their adversaries are entitled to their political
views. The accusation that revisionists are only interested in exonerating
National Socialism and that such an effort is reprehensible or even
criminal, is a boomerang: This accusation has as a prerequisite that it is
deemed unacceptable to partially exonerate National Socialism historically,
and by so doing, always also morally. But by declaring any hypothetical
exoneration based on possible facts as unacceptable, one admits openly not
to be interested in the quest for the truth, but in incriminating National
Socialism historically and morally under any circumstances and at all costs.
And the motivation behind this can only be political. Hence, those accusing
revisionists to misuse their research for political ends have themselves
been proven guilty of exactly this offense. It is therefore not necessarily
the revisionists who are guided by political motives--though quite a few of
them certainly are--but with absolute certainty all those who accuse others
of attempting to somehow historically exonerate a political system which has
long since disappeared.

As a consequence, our research must never be concerned with
the possible 'moral' spin-off effects of our findings in relation to
politicians or regimes of the past, but solely with the facts. Anyone who
argues the opposite does not understand scientific research and should not
presume to condemn others on the basis of authentic
research."

Return to
Questions

Is Holocaust Revisionism illegal?

In the United States, it is covered by the First Amendment,
like every peaceful, scholarly speech, which means that it is perfectly legal
to voice, write, publish revisionist views. Things are quite different,
however, when we turn to  Canada, Australia, or even several countries in
Europe.

In Australia and Canada, everything that is offending to the
Jewish community will be prosecuted by their so-called "Human Rights
Commission", a body which exists parallelly to the legal system and which can
order the confiscation of publications, the payment of fines, and the forced
declaration of apologies by the 'perpetrators.' Though these commissions are
not part of the regular legal system, disobeying them would by itself be a
crime which in turn would lead to criminal charges by the legal systems of
Canada and Australia. Although Holocaust Revisionism does not address anything
about Jews per se, all Jewish communities feel heavily offended by it,
because Revisionism directly or indirectly comes to the conclusion that
several Jewish personalities were not always truthful when testifying about
their experiences in World War II. Of course, it would be surprising if Jews
were to be the only identifiable group of humans who never lie,
distort, and exaggerate, but apparently leading Jewish representative feel
that nobody should ever be allowed to claim that certain Jews were dishonest
about the Holocaust.

In several European countries, Holocaust Revisionism is
considered to be a serious crime. In France, people can be sent to jail for up
the a year; in Switzerland up to three years; in Germany--as in Israel--for
five years; in Austria, a prison term up to 10 years is possible.

However, if we look into the legal situation, we must insist
that theoretically, Holocaust Revisionism should be perfectly legal in all
these countries. This is so because all these nations signed the United
Nations Declaration of Human Rights, which makes these Human Rights binding on
all these nations. Freedom of speech can be limited only in cases of insult or
incitement to criminal acts, but freedom of scientific research and peaceful
speech can never be limited--theoretically. For this reason, a recent
comprehensive German doctoral dissertation on the "Punishment of the Auschwitz
Lie" (Die
Strafbarkeit des Auschwitz-Leugnens) came to the conclusion that
Holocaust Revisionism itself can not be legally repressed: it would violate
basic human rights.

Letter of Public Prosecution
Chemnitz (Saxony): Everybody who is politically on the right is a Nazi.
And since obviously one half of the population is right of the middle
and the other half left of it, 50% of all Germans are by public
definition Neo-Nazis. (Click on document to
enlarge)

In practical terms, however, the situation is quite different
in Europe. As a matter of fact, the answer must be "yes;" Holocaust Revision
is indeed illegal in many countries in Europe. Since the middle of the 1980s,
and particularly since 1995, Holocaust Revisionists have been punished with
large fines and prison terms for no other reason than disputing the official
version of the Holocaust, both orally and in literature. The courts and the
media join forces to slander nonconforming critics and scientists as
"Auschwitz Deniers" or "Holocaust Deniers." (reference to come: Human Rights
Section in The Revisionist)

Let us examine Germany as the most powerful persecuting
nation. The basis for official repression in Germany is Paragraph 130 of the
German Penal Code, which flagrantly violates both the United Nations
Declaration of Human Rights and Article V of the German Constitution. Under
Article 3 of Paragraph 130, denial of National Socialist mass murder is
punishable with up to five years imprisonment and "denying" is defined as
"insinuating untruth in view of better knowledge." The Penal Code thus implies
that everyone is convinced of the truth of the official concept of history;
and so anyone who might express doubts or a contrary opinion, is intentionally
lying with criminal intent, or that s/he is insane. It is also a punishable
offense to present scientific evidence before the Court which would cast doubt
on the official version of Holocaust. O brave new world that hath such laws in
it!

It is not Holocaust Revisionism which is unlawful, it is the
procedure of the German courts. Unfortunately, the courts have the power. The
same situation prevails in Austria and Switzerland. In France, things aren't
quite as bad, since so far, no unsuspended prison term was ever handed
down.

For over ten years now, the German government has been busily
burning books again, primarily revisionist books. In addition, around ten to
fifteen thousand Germans are being prosecuted for thought crimes each and
every year! Please refer to the survey article on censorship in
Germany.

The document reproduced and translated in the box to the
right illustrates, just how serious the situation has become: German
officialdom and media classify everything which is to the right of the
political middle, including simple old fashioned conservatives and patriots,
without differentiation, as "right wing," "right wing radical," "right wing
extremist" and "neo-Nazi"; and no differentiation has been made in a long
time. One is tempted to support the repression of Neonazis, who are depicted
in the media as brutal and disgusting. However, you must consider this:
whoever blithely agrees that Neonazis should be prosecuted solely on account
of their deviant opinion, should not complain if he is slandered as Neonazi
and persecuted because a neighbor denounces him for waving a national banner
or singing the national anthem. Because that is exactly what is happening in
Germany: Those who express plain normal patriotic feelings, as it is quite
common and considered normal in the U.S., are considered to be Neonazis in
Germany--so far to the left has the political spectrum drifted there.
Everybody has the duty to protest the persecution of unconventional thinkers.
This is true not only if persecution comes from a dictatorship, but also if it
emanates from a constitutional democracy!

Return to
Questions

Where can I learn more about Holocaust Revisionism?

The best, fastest, cheapest place for this is the Internet
and, especially for English speakers, the websites http://www.codoh.com/, http://www.ihr.org/, as well as http://www.vho.org/. If your service provider
blocks these pages (obvious proof of censorship), you can circumvent Big
Brother with help of the cost-free service provided by http://www.anonymizer.com/. Anonymizer
makes it impossible for your service provider to recognize the content of what
you download, so it cannot censor it.

On http://www.vho.org/,
practically the entire revisionist body of literature is at your disposal,
either directly or through links to other websites. On every page of website
http://www.vho.org/, there is a tab called
"Index" on the menu, through which you will find name, language, and subject
indices.

As introductory writings, we recommend:

Manfred Köhler, Even Holocaust Lies Will Catch up With You
(to appear in 2004)

Jürgen Graf,
The Giant With Feet of Clay

Germar Rudolf, Jürgen Graf, Lectures on the Holocaust (to
appear in 2004)

For the more advanced reader we recommend

Germar Rudolf,
Dissecting the Holocaust

For readers who are interested in regularly appearing
periodicals containing updates on Revisionism, we recommend:

The
Revisionist (English)

The Journal of Historical
Review (English)

Vierteljahreshefte für
freie Geschichtsforschung (German)

The bold emphasized publications can be purchased at our book store. We can also send you a
free brochure of our revisionist publications which includes an order form.
Please address orders to:

Europe: Castle Hill Publishers, PO Box 118, Hastings
TN34 3ZQ
Email: [email-masked]; Fax: 0044-8701-387263

USA: PO Box 257768, Chicago, IL 60625, USA
Email:
[email-masked]; Fax: 1(773)
409-5570

You can find additional websites on our Link Site, including links to sites
which oppose Revisionism

Return to
Questions

Download this
brochure as a file in PDF-format (2 MB)

Order a Printed Version of this Brochure from our UK Store | from our US Store

Back to Germar
Rudolf's Views and Works
Back to Home Page of Germar Rudolf