Critique and counter-critique is one of the hallmarks of a scholarly attitude, so it goes without saying that revisionists are taking their opponents’ arguments and responses seriously. Hence, this section addresses the theses of several orthodox scholars on the Holocaust which have evoked revisionist responses. Although most orthodox scholars insist that revisionist arguments are not even worth looking at, a number of them have in fact breached the taboo and have not only looked at revisionist arguments, but have actually deigned to criticize them in one way or other. The revisionist responses and rebuttals can be found here as well.
By Ernest Sommers â™ August 1, 2000
About twenty years ago, a city supervisor in the city of San Francisco went berserk and murdered the mayor of the city, along with another supervisor, who just happened to be the only openly gay man on the city council. At his defense, the killer tried to justify his actions by claiming diminished mental capacity,…
By George Brewer â™ August 1, 2000
Not to anyone’s great surprise, David Irving lost his libel suit against Deborah Lipstadt and Penguin books. Judge Gray, newly appointed to the bench in England, ruled that, although Lipstadt did libel Irving in her book “Denying the Holocaust”, these libels could not be considered as damaging Irving’s reputation, because Irving had no reputation to…
By George Brewer â™ August 1, 2000
Michael Berenbaum's Op-Ed piece in the Los Angeles Times, “The Growing Assault the Truth of Absolute Evil” represents a wild and irrational attack on Holocaust revisionism with little logic and lots of overblown maledictions. Then tenor of the article is clearly shown by its title, which appends to Deborah Lipstadt's notorious formulation not only “evil”…
By Paul Grubach â™ August 1, 2000
Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2000 14:54:21 -0700 (PDT)From: Paul GrubachSubject: Did Michael Shermer Lie?To: [email protected] Dr. Shermer: I have shown the following extract from your Denying History to two professors who teach at Eastern Colleges. They think that you are guilty of conscious deception. In regard to Crematorium I (the alleged gas chamber) at Auschwitz…
By Paul Grubach â™ January 1, 2000
In the recent British High Court libel action of historian David Irving against Deborah Lipstadt, one of the most interesting aspects of the trial was the debate about the famous “Schlegelberger Document.” This March 1942, memorandum of State Secretary Franz Schlegelberger noted that Hitler's Chief of Chancellery, Dr. Hans Lammers, had informed him: “…The Fuehrer…
By Samuel Crowell â™ June 5, 2000
“In Memoriam!” Introduction A few years ago the argument began to emerge that the various gastight fixtures of the Birkenau crematoria were best explained in terms of protection against chemical warfare. The first exploration in this area was by Arthur R. Butz of Northwestern University, whose “Vergasungskeller” article of July 1996 argued that the basement…
By Bradley R. Smith â™ January 1, 2000
The ADL is consistent: it will always argue against a free press when the Holocaust controversy is being addressed. One of its routines is to use the—let's put this as carefully as we can—transparently stupid comparison of revisionist theory to the ADL's “hypothetical” paper arguing that Black slavery did not exist in America. This invented,…
By Brian A. Renk â™ September 26, 1999
(Lecture presentation at the Conference on Real History, Cincinnati, Ohio, September 26, 1999) Ladies and Gentlemen, Christopher Browning is internationally regarded as one of America's leading Holocaust historians by his peers, the academic establishment, the media, and, often times, in court rooms around the Western World, where he has been summoned as an expert witness…
By Samuel Crowell â™ January 1, 1999
In this order, dated March 31, 1943, there is also a reference to the filling of another order, placed on March 6, 1943, for a “gas door 100 x 192 cm for corpse cellar I of crematorium III … of exactly the same type and size as the cellar door of the crematorium opposite it,…
By Richard A. Widmann â™ December 1, 1998
Having recently finished reading Nation on Trial, Norman Finkelstein's acclaimed critique of Daniel J. Goldhagen's Hitler's Willing Executioners, I was struck by his identification of an important distinction. Finkelstein draws a contrast between what he calls “holocaust scholarship,” which he defines as historical and multicausal, and “Holocaust literature,” which he defines as ahistorical and monocausal….
End of content
End of content
