By Mark Weber
For more than 30 years, writers and publicists who call themselves revisionists have presented evidence and arguments questioning generally accepted accounts of the Holocaust. Some of these researchers have shown impressive fortitude -- defying smears, abuse, physical violence, and worse.1
In countries where “Holocaust denial” is a crime, skeptics have been fined, imprisoned or forced into exile for expressing dissident views on this issue.2 These victims of what amounts to a blatant suppression of free speech include Robert Faurisson and Roger Garaudy in France, Siegfried Verbeke in Belgium, Jürgen Graf and Gaston-Armand Amaudruz in Switzerland, and Ernst Zundel and Germar Rudolf in Germany.
Revisionists have published impressive evidence, including long neglected documents and testimony, that has contributed to a more complete and accurate understanding of an emotion-laden and highly polemicized chapter of history.
I have played a role in this effort. In published writings, in lectures, and in courtroom testimony, I have devoted much time and work to critically reviewing the “official” Holocaust narrative, to countering Holocaust propaganda, and to debunking specific Holocaust claims.
But in spite of years of effort by revisionists, including some serious work that on occasion has forced “mainstream” historians to make startling concessions,3 there has been little success in convincing people that the familiar Holocaust story is defective.
This lack of success is not difficult to understand. Revisionists are up against a well-organized, decades-long campaign that is promoted in the mass media, reinforced in classrooms, and supported by politicians.4
Tim Cole, a history professor and prominent specialist of Holocaust studies, has written in his book Selling the Holocaust: “From a relatively slow start, we have now come to the point where Jewish culture in particular, and Western culture more generally, are saturated with the 'Holocaust’. Indeed, the ‘Holocaust’ has saturated Western culture to such an extent that it appears not only centre stage, but also lurks in the background. This can be seen in the remarkable number of contemporary movies which include the 'Holocaust’ as plot or sub-plot.”
Between 1989 and 2003 alone, more than 170 films with Holocaust themes were made. In many American and European schools, a focus on the wartime suffering of Europe's Jews is obligatory. Every major American city has at least one Holocaust museum or memorial. The largest is the US Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, DC, which is run by a taxpayer-funded federal government agency, and draws some two million visitors yearly.
A number of countries, including Britain, Germany and Italy, officially observe an annual Holocaust Remembrance Day. The United Nations General Assembly in 2005 approved a resolution introduced by Israel to designate January 27 as an international Holocaust remembrance day.
In the United States and western Europe, the Holocaust has become is a venerated, semi-religious mythos. Prof. Michael Goldberg, an eminent rabbi, has written of what he calls a “Holocaust cult with its own tenets of faith, rites and shrines.” In this age of secular “political correctness,” Holocaust “denial” is the modern equivalent of sacrilege.
A major reason for the lack of success in persuading people that conventional Holocaust accounts are fraudulent or exaggerated is that -- as revisionists acknowledge – Jews in Europe were, in fact, singled out during the war years for especially severe treatment.
This was confirmed, for example, by German propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels in these confidential entries in his wartime diary:5
Feb. 14, 1942: “The Führer [Hitler] once again expresses his resolve ruthlessly to clear the Jews out of Europe. There must be no squeamish sentimentalism about it. The Jews have deserved the catastrophe that they are now experiencing. Their destruction will go hand in hand with the destruction of our enemies. We must hasten this process with cold ruthlessness.”
March 27, 1942: “The Jews are now being deported to the East from the Generalgouvernement [Poland], starting around Lublin. The procedure is a pretty barbaric one and not to be described here more definitely, and there’s not much left of the Jews. By and large, one can say that 60 percent of them will have to be liquidated, while only 40 percent can be put to work. The former Gauleiter of Vienna, who is carrying out the operation, is proceeding quite judiciously, using a method that is not all too conspicuous. The Jews are facing a judgment which, while barbaric, they fully deserve. The prophecy the Führer made about them for having brought on a new world war is beginning to come true in the most terrible manner. One must not be sentimental in these matters.”
April 29, 1942: “Short shrift is being made of the Jews in all eastern occupied territories. Tens of thousands of them are being wiped out.”
No informed person disputes that Europe’s Jews did, in fact, suffer a great catastrophe during the Second World War. Millions were forced from their homes and deported to brutal internment in crowded ghettos and camps. Jewish communities across Central and Eastern Europe, large and small, were wiped out. Millions lost their lives. When the war ended in 1945, most of the Jews of Germany, Poland, the Netherlands and others countries were gone.
Given all this, it should not be surprising that even well-founded revisionist arguments are often dismissed as heartless quibbling.
But despite a discouraging record of achievement, some revisionists insist that their work is vitally important because success in exposing the Holocaust as a hoax will deliver a shattering blow to Israel and Jewish-Zionist power. This view, however, is based on a mistaken understanding of the relationship between “Holocaust remembrance” and Jewish-Zionist power.
Even before World War II, the organized Jewish community was playing a major role in the political and cultural life of Europe and the United States, and the Zionist movement was already very influential. Although propaganda about the wartime catastrophe of Europe’s Jews was a factor in American society during the 1950s and 1960s, it was not until the late 1970s that “the Holocaust” began to play a really significant social-political role. It was not until the late 1970s and early 1980s that the term began to appear as a specific entry in standard encyclopedias and reference books, and became an obligatory subject in American textbooks and classrooms.
In short, the Holocaust assumed an important role in the social-cultural life of America and western Europe in keeping with, and as an expression of, a phenomenal increase in Jewish influence and power. The Holocaust “remembrance” campaign is not so much a source of Jewish-Zionist power as it is an expression of it. For that reason, debunking the Holocaust will not shatter that power.
Suppose The New York Times were to report tomorrow that Israel’s Yad Vashem Holocaust center and the US Holocaust Memorial Museum had announced that no more than one million Jews died during World War II, and that no Jews were killed in gas chambers at Auschwitz. The impact on Jewish-Zionist power would surely be minimal.
Although “Holocaust remembrance” remains well entrenched in our society, its impact seems to have diminished in recent years. In part this is because the men and women of the World War II generation are nearly all gone. But another factor has been a major shift in the world-political situation. The collapse of the Soviet Union and the Soviet empire, the end of US-Soviet “Cold War” rivalry, the Nine-Eleven terror attack in 2001, the US invasion and occupation of Iraq, and current world economic crisis, have ushered in a new era – one in which the Holocaust imagery of the 1940s is less potent because it’s less relevant.
Criticism of Israel and its policies has become much more common in recent years, even in the United States. Among thoughtful men and women, and especially in the youth, sympathy for Israel has fallen perceptibly, while skepticism about the role of the Holocaust in society has grown. Tony Judt, a prominent Jewish scholar who lives and works in New York, wrote recently:6
“Students today do not need to be reminded of the genocide of the Jews, the historical consequences of anti-Semitism, or the problem of evil. They know all about these – in ways our parents never did. And that is as it should be. But I have been struck lately by the frequency with which new questions are surfacing: `Why do we focus so much on the Holocaust?’ `Why is it illegal [in certain countries] to deny the Holocaust but not other genocides?’ `Is the threat of anti-Semitism not exaggerated?’ And, increasingly, `Doesn’t Israel use the Holocaust as an excuse?’ I do not recall hearing those questions in the past.”
This shift has also been noticed at the Institute for Historical Review. Over the past ten years, sales of IHR books, discs, flyers and other items about Holocaust history have steadily declined, along with inquiries about Holocaust history and requests for interviews on this subject. At the same time, and obviously reflecting broader social-cultural trends, there has been a marked rise in sales of IHR books, discs, flyers and other items about Jewish-Zionist power, the role of Jews in society, and so forth. This has been matched by an increase in the number of inquiries and requests for interviews on those issues.
Jewish-Zionist power is a palpable reality with harmful consequences for America, the Middle East, and the entire global community. In my view, and as I have repeatedly emphasized, the task of exposing and countering this power is a crucially important one.7 In that effort, Holocaust revisionism cannot play a central role.
One influential statesman who seems to understand this is the former prime minister of Malaysia, Mahathir Mohammed. In a much-discussed address delivered at an international conference in October 2003, he spoke forthrightly against Jewish-Zionist power, while making clear that he accepts the familiar “Six Million” Holocaust narrative. In the global struggle against this power, he said, “we are up against a people who think ... We cannot fight them through brawn alone. We must use our brains also … The Europeans killed six million Jews out of twelve million. But today the Jews rule this world by proxy. They get others to fight and die for them.”8
Setting straight the historical record about the wartime fate of Europe’s Jews is a worthy endeavor. But there should be no illusions about its social-political relevance. In the real world struggle against Jewish-Zionist power, Holocaust revisionism has proved to be as much a hindrance as a help.
Notes
1. “Jewish Militants: Fifteen Years, and More, of Terrorism in France.” The Journal of Historical Review, March-April 1996
(
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v16/v16n2p-2_Faurisson.html
)
2. M. Weber, “Toben's Arrest: A New Assault Against Free Speech.” Oct. 2008
(
http://www.ihr.org/other/oct08toben.html
)
3. Robert Faurisson, “The Victories of Revisionism.” Dec. 2006
(
http://www.fpp.co.uk/Auschwitz/Faurisson/at_Teheran_conf_2005.html
, and,
http://www.codoh.com/viewpoints/vprfvict.html
); R. Faurisson, “Impact and Future of Holocaust Revisionism.” The Journal of Historical Review, Jan.-Feb. 2000. (
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v19/v19n1p-2_Faurisson.html
)
4. M. Weber, “Holocaust Remembrance: What’s Behind the Campaign.” Feb. 2006.
(
http://www.ihr.org/leaflets/holocaust_remembrance.shtml
)
5. These Goebbels diaries quotes are from: Louis P. Lochner, ed., The Goebbels Diaries (Doubleday, 1948), pp. 86, 147-148, 195; Wilhelm Staeglich, Auschwitz: A Judge Looks at the Evidence (IHR, 1990), pp. 88-89; David Irving, Goebbels: Mastermind of the Third Reich (London: Focal Point, 1996), pp. 387, 388, 392.
6. Tony Judt, “The `Problem of Evil’ in Postwar Europe,” The New York Review of Books, Feb. 14, 2008, pp. 33-35.
(
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/21031
)
7. M. Weber, “In the Struggle for Truth and Justice.” August 2008.
(
http://www.ihr.org/other/aug08weber.html
); M. Weber, “The Israel Lobby: How Important Is It.” Nov 2007.
(
http://www.ihr.org/other/0711_webereugene.html
) See also: M. Weber, “A Straight Look at the Jewish Lobby.” Dec. 2007 (
http://www.ihr.org/leaflets/jewishlobby.shtml
)
8. J. Aglionby, “Fight Jews, Mahathir tells summit,” The Guardian (Britain) , Oct. 17, 2003.
(
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/oct/17/malaysia
) Quoted in: M. Weber, “In the Struggle for Peace and Justice: Countering Jewish-Zionist Power.” August 2008.
James Petras, Justin Raimundo, Philip Weiss, Jeffrey Blankenfort, Andrew Winkler, John Alan Martinson Jr., Mike Delaney, Peter Shaenk, Alexander Cockburn and Jimmy Carter are just a few of the others out there who are more protean and savvy anti-Zionist activists than Mark Weber. His effectiveness as such has not only been compromised already by his inertia, but also when he allowed himself to become the poster boy/punching bag Central Casting always sends over whenever the mainstream media needs a "Holocaust denier" to ridicule. The comments below by Breke, posted at Bradley Smith's CODOH forum, sum it up succinctly. Harvey Taylor, why don't you come clean and let folks know that Mark Weber also sits on your five man IHR board and would never vote himself out of a job should his position there ever really be challenged. If the mission of the IHR is no longer going to be historical revisionism than you people are misleading the public by not removing the "H" and the "R" from the name of your enfeebled institute.
-whodareswings
"Weber is no longer an important player in "Holocaust" revisionism, he contributes nothing other than criticism of Zionist power which is now mainstream, witness the work Walt &
Mearsheimer, among others.
The Jewish Supremacist media does with Weber what they do with the less than stellar David Irving. This media portrays both of them as the leading edge of revisionist research when in fact both Weber & Irving are mere opportunists and dabblers. Weber milks the old IHR work (which was certainly valuable way back when) for cash, and Irving has been exposed as largely unknowledgable when it comes the "Holocaust", witness his Hoefle Telegram embarrassment at this site.
Weber has been under fire for years for his unproductive exploitation of the IHR and apparently has become resentful towards his truthful critics. Immaturely, he strikes out at
those who have fingered him for the hack that he has become."
Breke's comments on Weber's essay regarding Zionism:
http://forum.codoh.com/ viewtopic. php?t=5271
Posted by: whodareswings | January 24, 2009 at 01:56 PM
"In the real world struggle against Jewish-Zionist power, Holocaust revisionism has proved to be as much a hindrance as a help."
"The Truth shall set you free." Since the Hoax is a lie; we MUST reject it.
The new trend among intellectuals is the attitude that "Hitler just wasn't that bad." Indeed, how the entire world convulsed into mass violence over control of the Sudetanland does seem rather puzzling.
Jews don't realize how boring they are. I remember as a college student being impressed that some people seemed to know names of all of those work camps; Auschwitz, Bergen-Belson and blah, blah, blah; yet I never bothered to pick up a book and read about it. Of course, my parents had told me over the dinner-table that the whole tale was just post-war propaganda; but even propaganda can be interesting. The Hoax was a total bore.
A bore? you might ask. Six million poor little Jews thrown into gas ovens did not even arouse my curiosity a little bit? To tell you the truth, I never read any more of Anne Frank's diary than my seventh-grade teacher assigned our class (and probably not even that much). The other girls didn't like Anne Frank either; one girl claimed that she was a "queer," (as a generic term of abuse) which is ironic now that her life is being rewritten by the "LGTB community."
The Holocaust isn't merely false, but it contains no human truths; and therefore has no value and no interest even as a myth. Consider Tolstoy's "War and Peace": this book is fiction, and yet the tale is fascinating, because of its truths. One recognizes the truths even at a subconscious level, and so one becomes deeply interested in the characters and their inter-twined fates. But the Hoax? Honestly, I was never even tempted to open any of Elie Weasel's books, even to verify that they are indeed the stupidest nonsense ever written.
Note that even Jews often seem to find their own Hoax boring and don't waste their time reading about it much, either.
Meanwhile, thanks in part to Sarah Palin, the "Jews are the Chosen" doctrine is seen as declasse; like greasy fast-food, paintings of Elvis on black velvet or Walmart's vinyl furniture. Yes, the Holocaust is now perceived as lower middle-brow.
Posted by: Mary O'Brien | January 24, 2009 at 06:50 PM
Duke ripped him to pieces.
Posted by: K-Sensor | January 24, 2009 at 09:02 PM
The arrogance of the perfidious jew knows no bounds, the more power and influence they have aquired, them more they are sowing the seeds for their ultimate downfall.
For example, regarding the Holocaust, one day the majority of people will actively ask, how can one legislate against an opinion after all history is relative, I was intrigued by the fact that most people who 'study' the jew are not concerning themselves with Holocaust tales (after all, this is merely another bit part in the jews' overall plans), but are reading up and beginning to 'join the dots'.
Europeans were, prior to World War II, 'jew aware', but next time, because what was then theory has since then been proven in practice, the perfidious jew will pay the ultimate price, and may actually find that next time people will think that whatever 'acts' that they may perpetrate against the jew will be exaggerated so it will make no odds to actually go to such extremes against them!
Posted by: Fred | January 25, 2009 at 03:04 AM
"In the real world struggle against Jewish-Zionist power"...
"the more power and influence they have acquired, them more they are sowing the seeds for their ultimate downfall"...
What happens to your white kind when the next generation of American-born Chinese, Indians, and Latinos will start to squeeze you?
When it is hard to compete by IQ, and impossible to compete by numbers, some weak minds turn to conspiracy theories.
Posted by: BOB | January 27, 2009 at 06:22 AM
Dear Peter,
Let's examine the amount of donations the IHR/Mark Weber received from the revisionist/patriot community, and then ask this question: Is the revisionist/patriot community getting a good return on their money?
For said years, the IHR/Mark Weber took in the following in "Contributions, Gifts, Grants, And Similar Amounts Received: Direct Public Support."
Tax Year 2000--$346, 572
Tax Year 2001---$209, 229
Tax Year 2002---$610, 152
Tax Year 2003--$210, 363
Tax Year 2005--$409, 477
Tax Year 2006--$299, 623
Now, this adds up to be $2,085,416. That is to say, the IHR/Mark Weber took in $2,085,416 in donations from the Revisionist/patriot community for these six tax years. Have we, in turn, received a good return on our money????
I say, Hell no!!! Mark Weber destroyed the Journal of Historical Review, the yearly IHR conferences, the IHR's book publishing arm, and the IHR newsletter. He even refuses to sponsor a weekly Radio talk show!
What does Mark Weber/IHR do to deserve $2,085,416 from the Revisionist/patriot community???? Well, he sends out newspaper clippings to one thousand people or less. He sells a bunch of old books and DVDs, many of which are decades old. He attempts to market the works of others like Kevin MacDonald and Pat Buchanan--books that can be obtained cheaper elsewhere. And finally, every once in a great while Weber writes a short essay or gives a short speech.
In my opinion, this is madness!!!! The $2,085,416 is a horrendous waste of money!! I can think of far more productive ways to utilize this money than to send it to Mark Weber.
Unfortunately, Mark has proven himself to be a horrible leader and Director. He led the charge to destroy Willis Carto's Liberty Lobby and the Spotlight, and took in about one million dollars to boot? And what does he have to show for it? Absolutely nothing!!
Mark Weber destroyed the Journal of Historical Review, the IHR's book publishing arm, the yearly IHR conferences, and the IHR's newsletter. And what has Mark Weber given us in return?? Well, he sends out newspaper clippings to a thousand people or less.
Weber has very little business acumen, as "his" IHR is forever teetering on the brink of financial disaster, despite the fact that he beat Carto in court and took in one million dollars. Contrast Weber's poor record with that of his hated enemy, Willis Carto. Carto lost his home, his Liberty Lobby and Spotlight, but he bounced back and went on to create the American Free Press and The Barnes Review, etc.
People who have been in a position to observe Mark Weber first hand, like former IHR editor Ted O'Keefe and former IHR employee Ken Usher, will tell you that he has an inability to get his work done. Indeed, this character trait has plagued much of his career. He was supposed to write a very important book, The Final Solution: Legend and Reality. Vintage Weber--he never finished the book. Brilliant procrastinator that he is, Mark can always concoct a convenient excuse as to why it is not his fault that he never published this important book.
In a six year period, Mark Weber/the IHR took in a whopping $2,085,416!! And he has next to nothing to show for it. He is wasting Our Revisionist/patriot money. His web site basically consists of a bunch of newspaper clippings, old issues of the now-defunct Journal of Historical Review, and he attempts to sell very old books or other people's books (books that can be easily obtained elsewhere). Every once in a great while, he gives a short speech or writes an essay. His main duty appears to be to send out newspaper clippings to about one thousand people. This is foolish waste of the large sums of money that Weber is taking in from the revisionist/patriot community and things have to change.
One of the most important functions of a "political/historical think-tank" like the IHR is to "keep current." That is to say, to provide new and original scholarly material on political and historical issues. Mark Weber's IHR virtually does none of this.
Please keep in mind Mark Weber's battle cry, which he conveniently used when he was fighting Carto: "The IHR does not belong to one man. It belongs to all of us, because without all of us it would not exist." Ergo, we all have a right to join in the attempt to improve the IHR.
In a best-case scenario, I believe our goal should be to get Mark Weber to be more productive. This would be in the best interests of himself and the entire movement. Specifically, he should re-start the Journal of Historical Review, and he should host a weekly Internet Radio broadcast.
But I hold no illusions about Mark. He wants to do the least amount of work and to continue to collect a paycheck for so doing. He is as stubborn as a mule, and there is probably nothing that can be done to make him more productive. This being so, he should resign from the IHR.
But, once again, I hold no illusions about this either. Mark Weber has a tighter grip on the IHR than Willis Carto ever did. He is not going to give up his control of the IHR, and thus, it will probably go bankrupt in the near future. It cannot go on like it is in this present non--productive condition.
Paul Grubach
Posted by: Paul Grubach | March 05, 2009 at 08:57 PM