INTRODUCTION
For many, the phrase "going underground" conjures up images of
anti-establishment sub-cultures. Oftentimes, we think of groups
or individuals "going underground" when their thoughts or ideas
have resulted in persecution in mainstream society. Fyodor
Dostoevsky utilized the term in his story, Notes from Underground
his all-out assault on Enlightenment rationalism. Others may
think of the "Underground Railroad," the clandestine routes that
slaves used throughout the nineteenth century to escape to "free
states" in the northern United States.
The earliest images that come to mind for most people however,
date back nearly two thousand years to early Christian culture in
ancient Rome. Christian belief in bodily resurrection resulted
in their desire to bury their dead. These early underground
burial sites became known as the 'Catacombs.' Since Roman
law prohibited burials inside the city limits, Christians devised
their underground burial places right outside of the city limits.
The catacombs were used both as burial places and for memorial services.
[1]
Popular culture often depicts the catacombs as secret hiding
places for Christians throughout the long period of their persecution
by Roman authorities. Today historians largely disagree with
this portrayal of the catacombs. [2] It is this popular image
however, that resulted in Walter Lüftl's coining of the phrase "Catacomb
Revisionists." [3] In a brief letter to the editor of The
Revisionist, Lüftl wrote:
"There you can see how we can create proselyte revisionists,
or how they come into being, and be it by pure coincidence!
I call them 'catacomb revisionists,' because like the early
Christians in Rome, they, too, can survive only in catacombs
[...] You will not believe how many people I already have
converted into catacomb revisionists over a nice glass of wine.
But when they want to spread the knowledge they gained after
they started to learn more following their conversion, they
all subsequently encounter problems in their families and social
circles, because most people cannot distinguish between 'belief
and facts.' [4]
Today revisionist historians who refute or even dare to question
the established orthodoxy of the official Holocaust story find themselves
persecuted and imprisoned throughout the world. The persecution
has not prevented revisionists from writing, publishing, and speaking
on these matters, but has largely driven them "underground" or turned
them into "catacomb revisionists." Many newcomers to revisionism,
for fear of backlash and persecution, have taken to the use of pseudonyms
in their writing. In some cases, even established revisionists
have utilized this age-old tactic to avoid both governmental and
non-governmental repression for having expressed their viewpoint
with regard to this one historical period.
EARLY HISTORY
Holocaust revisionism has had a long and distinguished history
of the use of pseudonyms or "nom de plumes" by it's authors.
Three early titles were written by Josef Ginsburg using the pseudonym,
J.G. Burg. These included, Schuld und Schicksal (Debt
and Destiny), 1962, Suendenboecke (Scapegoats), 1967, and
NS-Verbrechen (National Socialist Crimes), 1968. Ginsburg,
a Jewish author had been deported during the war by the Nazis.
Presumably Ginsburg used this pseudonym to protect both himself
and his family. [5]
One of the earliest English language revisionist books
that addressed the Holocaust story was The Myth of the Six Million.
This title originally appeared in 1969. It's author was identified
simply as "anonymous."[6] Today it is known that this book
was written by David L. Hoggan, an academic who taught at
the University of California at Berkeley, San Francisco State College
and several other schools of higher learning.[7] The Noontide
Press published Hoggan's study anonymously purportedly to avoid
academic retribution against Hoggan.[8]
In 1974, the highly influential booklet, Did Six Million Really
Die? was written under the pen name Richard Harwood. The
booklet has since had its author identified as Richard Verrall.
The pseudonym "Harwood" was later used by several different
authors including David McCalden and Ditlieb Felderer. [9]
McCalden who became the first director of the Institute for Historical
Review frequently used the pen name, Lewis Brandon. [10] During
Ernst Zündel's 1988 trial for having published Did Six Million
Really Die?, Bradley Smith, founder and director of the Committee
for Open Debate on the Holocaust (CODOH), pointed out that it was
sometimes necessary to use pen names because of the violence directed
at one simply for expressing doubt about the bona fides of
a historical event.[11]
Ditlieb Felderer would also publish an early revisionist book,
Auschwitz Exit using the pen name, Abraham Cohen. Felderer
claimed that he used the pen name in order to gain entry to various
communist countries in order to conduct research and that use of
his real name would result in denial of entry. Felderer's
concerns appear to have been justified. In 1981, he was imprisoned
by the government of Poland. [12]
It is clear that revisionists have used pseudonyms from
their earliest days. Pseudonyms were the logical result of
real threats which ranged from governmental repression to mob violence.
In an effort to protect themselves, their careers and even their
loved ones, revisionists frequently resorted to various pen names.
This was not a matter of "intellectual dishonesty" as some anti-revisionists
have charged but rather a means to avoid persecution.
CRITIQUES
The use of pseudonyms by revisionists has been frequently condemned
by its detractors. Deborah Lipstadt used her typical derogatory
tone with regard to pseudonyms throughout her Denying the Holocaust.
She took aim at Richard Harwood and the original claim that he was
with the University of London. For Lipstadt, the attempts
to "camouflage" Harwood's identity was a matter of hiding his association
with the British National Front.[13]
Perhaps the most read critique of revisionist use of pseudonyms
is that of Harry Mazal of the Holocaust History Project, an anti-revisionist
group that functions primarily on the Internet. Mazal mainly
targeted Germar Rudolf, for what he calls his, "continuing attempt
to obfuscate and confuse." Mazal writes,
"Mr. Rudolf, like many other Holocaust deniers, has created
a variety of pseudonyms, referred to as nyms in common
Internet parlance. Most deniers use such pseudonyms to conceal
their identities in the various Usenet discussion groups." [14]
Mazal may not go as far as Lipstadt in attributing sinister
intentions to revisionists, but clearly he believes that the use
of nyms as he calls them are all about creating confusion
and covering up true identities. He also takes a shot at Samuel
Crowell complaining, "Some, like "Samuel Crowell" use a
nym to avoid embarrassment in their legitimate work place."
[15] Still, Mazal refuses to address why revisionists should be
"embarrassed" in their work place and even further who might cause
them "embarrassment." Beyond "embarrassment" many revisionists
have lost careers due to their revisionist activities. [16]
Some revisionists also have been critical of the use of pseudonyms
and pen names. Despite the long tradition of their use, various
revisionists who are open about their work and viewpoints have sometimes
expressed distaste at those who prefer pseudonyms. To the
open revisionist, the use of a pseudonym can diminish the trust
and confidence they are willing to place in the "underground" revisionist.
Mark Weber, while editor of the Journal of Historical Review
was often reluctant to publish works submitted under pen names.
David Irving also has made various comments through the years targeted
at those who prefer to remain in the shadows. This position
is certainly more understandable from those who like Irving have
lost everything and even suffered imprisonment for their battle
for revisionism than from the anti-revisionists who hypocritically
denounce the use of pseudonyms and applaud the repression of those
who express doubt about the Holocaust.
ANTI-REVISIONIST LEGISLATION
Although revisionists feared reprisal even dating back to the
early 1960's, persecution and governmental repression has become
a growing threat largely since the 1980's.In a short article, an
anonymous revisionist author summed up the situation,
"By the 1980's there had arisen a powerful movement among
mainstream Holocaust scholars, Jewish organizations, and politicians
in Europe and Canada to actually criminalize dissent regarding
the popular version of the Holocaust. Whereas only the
United States was insulated from such censorship attempts because
of a constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech, it had been
assumed by many that the rest of the countries of the Western
world, while lacking such a free-speech guarantee, nonetheless
supported the notion of intellectual freedom, i.e. the principle
that no one should be persecuted by their government for the
"crime" of writing or reading unpopular material." [17]
The writer goes on to report,
"[...] by the year 1996 the only European nation to lack
some kind of an "anti-revisionist" law would be Denmark, a small
victory for revisionism rendered moot by a European Common Market
regulation that enables a citizen of one European country to
sue the citizen of any other for an offense that may only be
an offense in the first country. By 1996, Canada, Australia,
South Africa, and Mexico would have all persecuted Holocaust
revisionists by law." [18]
With each passing year, the number of countries that outlawed
Holocaust revisionism grew. France's repressive Loi Gayssot
was enacted on July 13, 1990. The Swiss voted their anti-revisionist
law into effect in September, 1994. Germany would join suit
in the autumn of 1994 making it a criminal offense to "deny or trivialize
any act committed under National Socialist rule." [19] Belgium would
pass their Negationism Law in March, 1995. Other countries
were soon to follow. As the governments of Europe enacted
what would amount to "thoughtcrimes" legislation against revisionists
at the request of various Jewish activist organizations, revisionists
were further driven underground. [20] This drive to outlaw revisionism
had the side-effect of even greater use of pseudonyms in the 1990's
and the years that followed.
THE INTERNET AGE
Although the result of a long history, the Internet largely
went public in the 1990's. Revisionists were there from the
start. In August 1991, Dan Gannon began his BBS "Banished
CPU." [21] Throughout 1992, a heated debate on the Holocaust controversy
raged on discussion forums on the GEnie and Prodigy systems. [22]
The most important discussions however began taking place on the
Usenet newsgroup alt.revisionism.
The Internet became a principle driving force in the use of various
identities by revisionists. Email addresses were typically
created with something other than the individuals full name.
Likewise, identification on newsgroups including alt.revisionism
were often creative and typically masked one's true identity.
Revisionists as well as anti-revisionists, and just about anyone
else who wandered into any newsgroup now had an ID other than their
given name.
At times, revisionists were forthright in identifying themselves,
only to find their private information catalogued and distributed.
As harassment increased, the drive to greater anonymity increased
as well.
GERMAR RUDOLF
Germar Rudolf entered the revisionist scene in 1992 right
as Europe was enacting tougher anti-revisionist legislation and
the Internet was becoming a household word. Rudolf, it can
be said, raised the use of pseudonyms to an art-form. Rudolf,
however has been attacked more for his use of pseudonyms than any
other revisionist.
Due to Rudolf's expertise as a chemist, he found himself being
called by several defense lawyers to be an expert witness in trials
against revisionists in Germany. These included trials against
Udo Walendy (February 1992), Gerd Honsik (March 1992), David Irving
(May 1992), Max Wahl (July 1992). Rudolf found that in these
and other trials that the judges rejected any and all evidence presented
by the defense, including that of expert witnesses. He writes:
"In one case, I had to learn that a chemist (me) was rejected
because he was neither a toxicologist nor a historian, an engineer
(Leuchter) was rejected because he was neither a chemist nor
a historian, and a historian (Prof. Haverbeck) was rejected
because hew was neither a chemist nor an engineer." [23]
Rudolf concluded that the German legal system was corrupt
and that an expert witness would need to simultaneously be an engineer,
a chemist, a toxicologist, a historian and even a barrister.
With this in mind, he set out to mock the current injustice in Germany
by creating a person with all of these qualifications. Rudolf
set to work on his first revisionist publication, a brochure entitled,
Die Zeit lügt! After discussions with the publisher,
Karl Philipp, they decided to divide their "expert" author into
four. The work was published in October 1992 under four pen
names: Dipl.-Ing. Hans Karl Westphal, engineer; Dr. Werner Kretschmer,
barrister, Dr. Christian Konrad, historian, Dr. Rainer Scholtz,
chemist and pharmacologist. To this day, Rudolf is charged
with dishonesty because of the use of these names and the "academic
credentials" he attributed to them. [24]
By the Spring of 1992, Rudolf had prepared his expert report
on the Auschwitz 'gas chambers' at the request of the legal defense
of Otto Remer. While Rudolf was postponing any general publication
of his work until he was awarded his PhD from the Max Planck Institute,
Remer went ahead and published and distributed the work in early
1993. [25] As Rudolf found himself in a head-on collision
with the German legal system, he opted to go further "underground"
and continued his writings under various pen names. In early
1994, Prof. Dr. Ernst Nolte: Auch Holocaust-Lügen haben kurze
Beine would be released under the pseudonym, Manfred Köhler.
Rudolf's own legal situation would be taken up in Der Fall Rudolf
under the pseudonym Wilhelm Schlesiger.
With the newly fortified anti-revisionist laws passed in the
autumn of 1994, Rudolf found himself dragged before the German legal
system in a trial which lasted from late 1994 to mid-1995.
As his trial was beginning, Rudolf had prepared yet another book
for publication. Due to his current situation with the German
courts, Rudolf decided to publish this new work, Grundlagen zur
Zeitgeschichte under a new pseudonym, Ernst Gauss. During
the trial, German police raided Rudolf's home and found yet another
work, the nearly complete, Auschwitz: Nackte Fakten on his
computer. [26] In Auschwitz: Nackte Fakten, Rudolf
once again used two, now familiar, pen names, Ernst Gauss and Manfred
Köhler.
Rudolf's energy and the sheer volume of his efforts resulted
in his later publications often citing his earlier works.
Rudolf now found himself in the uncomfortable position of having
one of his pen names citing another of his own secret identities.
Although clearly forced into this situation by repressive laws targeting
revisionist publications, Rudolf's detractors had a field day.
Rudolf has been charged with every type of duplicity and intellectual
dishonesty by those who seem content to turn a blind-eye to the
draconian legal system in which Rudolf found himself. Today,
with the cooperation of the United States government, Rudolf is
currently serving out his sentence for publishing his expert report
in Germany.
THE CURRENT CLIMATE
Today, revisionists find themselves in a world that is increasingly
oppressive to their work. Anti-revisionist laws, far from
achieving their stated purpose, now stifle free speech and expression
and prevent a proper understanding of the Holocaust. In addition
they attempt to control the thoughts of citizens through intimidation.
Several revisionists sit in European prison cells including Germar
Rudolf and Ernst Zündel. British historian, David Irving has
recently served out 400 days in solitary confinement in Austria
for comments he made in 1989.
Although some supporters of free speech have written articles
and made statements denouncing the treatment of revisionists, most
remain noticeably silent. So-called human rights organizations
like Amnesty International refuse to defend or come to the aid of
Holocaust revisionists.
Other organizations go beyond inactivity or silence to openly
attacking freedom of speech when it comes to revisionists.
Upon the release of David Irving from prison, Efraim Zuroff, the
director of the Simon Wiesenthal Center's office in Israel said
that the court's ruling was the "worst possible response to last
week's Holocaust denial conference in Tehran and will only encourage
those who support these mad ideas." [27]
In a recent fund-raising letter, the Anti-Defamation League,
who claim to fight "to secure justice and fair treatment for all"
addresses the recent Holocaust conference in Tehran. They
write to their potential financial backers not only about the threat
of Holocaust "denial," but of the need to monitor and track revisionists
around the world:
"The conference clearly illustrates that hate is a global threat.
To successfully fight it, we must challenge it wherever and
whenever it appears. We need your support more than ever,
to track and report on these racists. We need your support to
expose their hateful agenda. We need your support to do everything
possible to ensure that world leaders do not waver in their
resolve against an increasingly dangerous Iran." [28]
Revisionists find themselves in an increasingly hostile environment.
The news media has misrepresented their viewpoints and taken entirely
to the use of the derogatory and misleading term "Holocaust deniers"
to identify those who try to bring the Holocaust story into accord
with the facts. Holocaust revisionists have been denounced
by world leaders including: Tony Blair, Prime Minister of Britain;
Angela Merkel, Chancellor of Germany; Ehud Olmert, Prime Minister
of Israel; George Bush, President of the United States and even
Kofi Annan, the United Nations Secretary General. [29]
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE FUTURE (AND THE PRESENT)
Revisionism has always been about correcting the historical record
in the light of a more complete collection of historical facts.
[30] Revisionists can be typified as being relentless in their
pursuit of the truth even in light of overwhelming opposition.
In a letter to dissident Israeli journalist Israel Shamir, Germar
Rudolf described himself (a revisionist archetype) as follows:
"That’s my personality: a contrarian with enormous will power,
stubbornness, if need be [...] Pressure causes counter pressure.
In this way I am a simple physical principle. Here is my human
right to doubt, research, scrutinize, disagree, dispute, refute,
challenge, question. [...] And that is the strongest motivation:
Anybody who punishes me for merely exercising my human right
of being a human = a creature able to doubt and explore, will
meet my utmost unbreakable resistance. I won’t allow anybody
to reduce me to a submissive slave. Nobody." [31]
Rudolf writes, "Pressure causes counter pressure." With
the extreme pressure currently being enacted against revisionists,
their resolve is only strengthened. Revisionists have the
right to doubt, to research, to challenge and to question just as
anyone else does. The Holocaust is just like any other historical
event. It must be researched to arrive at the truth of what
exactly did and what did not happen. It should not be protected
by law.
The research, the publications, the debates, especially those
on the Internet must go on. The writers and thinkers who are
currently in prison deserve the support of those who are currently
free. While some are willing to stake their personal reputations
and fortunes for this battle for truth, others are not. Neither
position is wrong. For those who fear that they have too much
to lose in this struggle, going "underground" is an acceptable and
even valued strategy.
In his brief letter, Walter Lüftl wrote about bringing new converts
to Holocaust revisionism. These new converts may only be able
to survive in the 'catacombs.' If so, then why not?
Revisionists may be forced underground into the 'catacombs' for
the time being as a way to carry on our work and to fight for the
freedom of those in European prison cells. As we consider
the early persecution of Christians and the martyrs who perished
in prison cells and for the amusement of Roman rulers in the bloody
coliseum, we should also recall that Rome was unable to eliminate
Christianity. The apostle John, no stranger to persecution wrote
in his gospel, "the truth will set you free." [32] Revisionists
will only be set free by the truth. Acceptance and understanding
of the truth of the Holocaust will result in the repeal of Europe's
anti-revisionist laws. The elimination of these hateful laws
which strike at the ability for one to be fully human will usher
in a new time of freedom and a greater understanding among nations.
These goals are well-worth the struggle. They warrant going
underground for the time being, for they forecast our ultimate emergence
from the dark of the 'catacombs' into the light and the mainstream
of society and contemporary historical inquiry.