A Tale of Two “Genocides'

Dr. Fredrick Töben of Australia's Adelaide Institute was recently given a 10 month prison sentence in Germany. The Institute rejects the claim that homicidal gas chambers were used at Auschwitz-Birkenau. In April, while in Germany, Töben met with prosecutor Heiko Klein and raised questions about the Holocaust. During the discussion Töben was arrested and sent to jail without bail. The judge agreed to allow him out on bail for the remaining three months of the sentence; Töben having served seven months before trial. Töben's troubles actually started when he expressed his doubts about homicidal gas chambers on the Institute's Web site, an act which qualifies as a crime under German law.

After taking note of what happened to Dr. Fredrick Töben, it was astounding to witness news reports and shows in mid-November that raised questions about alleged atrocities in Kosovo. The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation felt the issue was so important that it was the lead story on several newscasts. Their popular Prime Time Magazine which constitutes the second half of their evening newscast devoted an entire segment to the topic. Newsworld's Counterspin (also CBC) assembled a lively panel to debate the issue. The host of Counterspin, a female who was filling in for regular host Avi Lewis (son of former Canadian Ambassador Stephen Lewis), did an excellent job in bringing balance to the issue.

Questions about whether there actually was a “genocide,” whether we had been given accurate accounts of what allegedly happened, and whether the number of casualties had been inflated, were all  fearlessly raised. Nevertheless, no one was put in jail, no lives were threatened, no one was beaten. No careers came to a sudden end. No court of law or Human Rights Commission/Tribunal had to be used to punish those individuals who were challenging the atrocity allegations. So while one man was being handed a 10 month prison term for questioning one set of atrocity allegations, we find that the international community is posing the very same ones about another set. (An episode of Counterspin featuring the the likes of Ernst Zündel and Dr. Robert Faurisson taking on Bernie Farber and Sol Littman would have been even more interesting, but it will never happen in politically correct Canada.)

Sadly, Dr. Töben is not the only Holocaust revisionist to be thrown in jail for having the “incorrect” opinion about the Holocaust. In contrast with the recent fuss over possible “genocide” propaganda coming from Kosovo, the Holocaust is a closed topic. Those who dare challenge this taboo in public, even in Canada, are sometimes dealt with by the courts and/or Human Rights Commissions or Tribunals (just ask former columnist Doug Collins). Whether or not legal channels are utilized, Holocaust taboo-breakers are inevitably subjected to various forms of persecution of one kind or another.

The following are some questions which came to mind when comparing the different treatments that have been accorded to the two “genocides” mentioned above:

• What would be wrong with applying to the Holocaust the same methods of inquiry being used to determine what did, or didn't, happen in Kosovo?
• If in this information age and with the world watching we are still uncertain about what happened in Kosovo, then how can we be so certain of everything alleged to have happened in the German concentration camps?
• Why is possible to debate the number of alleged victims of atrocities in Kosovo, yet we are forced to use the inflated “six million” figure in dealing with Jewish “losses” during World War II?
• Why are Holocaust revisionists persecuted (jailed, beaten, prosecuted, brought before human rights commissions/tribunals, made liable to loss of employment and/or academic credentials, to defamation of character, etc.) for asking the same questions about the Holocaust that are currently being asked about Kosovo?
• Why is the attempt to establish what really happened, or didn't happen, in Kosovo an issue of “truth” and “integrity,” yet in the case of the Holocaust a similar attempt is considered to be motivated by feelings of “hatred?”

Normally, when a war ends and the hysteria dies, a deep breath is taken and the job of establishing the boundaries of truth and fiction are tackled in a less emotional fashion. The questions being raised about atrocity allegations in Kosovo are therefore part of a standard post-war debate. However, similar skepticism and revisions are not permitted in the case of the Holocaust. The following are the common explanations:

• It will lead to another Holocaust.
• Those who question the Holocaust want it to happen again.
• It defames the dead.
• What we are told about the Holocaust is 100% accurate and there is nothing to question.
• It doesn't matter if it had been six million or one, that's not the point!
• Why humiliate the survivors and minimize what they went through?
• Why would anyone even want to raise any questions about something so horrible?

The above points are also being made in the dispute over alleged Kosovo atrocities, but unlike the case of the Holocaust, they have not managed to suppress debate. Because of this, defenders of the Serbs have been able to make the following points to counter the genocidal hysteria:

• Truth and accuracy are issues of integrity, not hatred.
• Exaggerating, or fabricating, atrocity accounts defames Serbs.
• Atrocity exaggerations/fabrications by NATO were used as propaganda in order to justify the war against Serbia.
• Both sides are guilty of atrocities and to exaggerate what one side allegedly did and to ignore what the other side did is both unfair and dishonest.

Replace “Serbs” with “Germans” and it becomes clear that these rebuttals are the same as those which have been used by the Holocaust revisionists for decades. So why is there a debate taking place over what allegedly happened in Kosovo, yet no such debate is permissible in the case of the Holocaust? Why are Holocaust revisionists allegedly driven by “hatred” and “anti-Semitism,” yet those who question Kosovo victimology are simply seeking the “truth” and protecting the integrity of the Serbian people?

The fact that some Serbs feel compelled to defend the honour of their people should be commended. If a debate can be opened and the truth can somehow emerge then everyone will win. If part of this truth also leads to deeper questions about the motives and actions of NATO and whether the attacks on Serbia were warranted, then we will all benefit even more.

Those who want to go to war for any reason will use anything they can to “morally” justify their cause. Currently, the most effective and powerful way of gaining such justification is to throw around the term “genocide,” and this is exactly what NATO and its members did. They wanted to bomb Serbia and they reached for the “genocide” card in order to influence public opinion. Deconstructing an alleged “genocide” can cause a propaganda campaign to collapse like a house of cards and prompt a penetration to even more important related issues. The Holocaust lobby is fully aware that an open debate on the Holocaust would inevitably open up the whole issue of World War II itself, and this is absolutely the last thing the powers-that-be want because truth is their greatest enemy.