Intellegent design and Holocaust “denial”

Comments (1)
Intellegent design and Holocaust “denial” (#70926)
by Bradley Reed Smith on November 13, 2005 at 2:05 PM
While it is commonplace to make this comparison, it fails badly in one way. To question the gas-chamber story has become a criminal offense in most European countries and in Israel. What kind of “truth” is it that requires the State to imprison those who question it?

Re: Intellegent design and Holocaust “denial” (#70952)
by Jonathan Dresner on November 14, 2005 at 4:50 AM
I'm not a fan of those laws, and I don't think the truth requires the criminalization of falsehood. But I can sympathize with those who feel that there really are ideas which are criminally wrong, even though I think the method is deeply flawed. We have laws against “reckless endangerment”: laws against Holocaust Denial are, in some sense, an extension of that into the realm of historical study. Some falsehoods really pose dangers to the present and future.

by John D. Beatty on November 14, 2005 at 7:35 AM
Why is it a criminal offense? Simple: “Never Again!” By denying the truth of industrialized genocide it becomes possible again. Personally I don't care if you deny the Earth beneath your feet. But doing that will not enable systematic murder again.

By Bradley Reed Smith
The skeptic, if he is good-willed, questions an accepted “truth,” he doesn’t “deny” it. Skepticism has been at the heart of Western culture for close to three thousand years. Most recently it resurfaced during a little something we call the “Enlighenment.” It would be good to keep in mind that the story of the “industrialized” genocide of the European Jews and others during WWII was institutionalized at Nuremberg by factotums represnting Josef Stalin, a known mass-murderer, and Harry Truman, the hero of Nagasaki, Hiroshima and a few other places. I would have more “faith” in the “gas-chamber” story had it been officially institutionalized in some other venue. I know. That’s just me.
This isn’t a question of believing or denying. It is a question of whether the professors are going to continue to support the impostion of a taboo against free inquiry and open debate on this one historical issue, which is the case now, or will they encourage an open debate on the matter, which is one of the primary ideals for the university in the West. It’s either open debate, or true belief. Some of us are for the one, some for the other.

by Jonathan Dresner on November 14, 2005 at 10:35 PM
Mr. Smith: Your continued use of quotation marks around gas chamber suggests to me that you do not qualify as a “good willed” skeptic.

by Bradley Reed Smith on November 14, 2005 at 11:39 PM
Well, I agree with you about the quotation marks. There is no reason to use them in this context. At the same time, in the interest of full disclosure as we say, I no longer believe the gas-chamber stories. That in itself has nothing to do with being, or not being, “good-willed.” In my view.

by mark safranski on November 14, 2005 at 4:23 PM
Historical debate is not on the same plane as scientific inquiry in terms of methodology but the two fields do share a common problem – it is impossible to have a scholarly exchange with a crank because the intrinsic quality of being a crank means not accepting empirical evidence with any methodological consistency that would allow their underlying belief to be challenged.

ID advocates, to the extent that they portray their beliefs as ” science” are cranks. So too are Holocaust deniers. The difference between the two is that one is merely irrational and the second is irrational and act out of a desire to rehabilitate Nazism, usually because they themselves are antisemites.

Stalin was a genocidal monster like Hitler but that has nothing to do with whether or not the Holocaust happened. Truman used the Atomic Bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki but that fact is not an argument for moral equivalence to Nazi genocide. The meaning of the Holocaust and its interpretation has been debated for sixty years. What serious scholars do not debate is whether or not it happened. We leave that to the cranks.

Re: Intellegent design and Holocaust “denial” (#71037)
by Bradley Reed Smith on November 14, 2005 at 11:51 PM
“Shock and awe,” the result of decades of academic suppression of open debate on one particular historical event. What is there to fear? Certainly intellectual freedom and open debate offer nothing to the skeptic that they do not offer to the true believer. At this very time Germar Rudolf is being prepped to be shipped to Germany to be imprisoned for revisionist thought crimes. Where is there one academic among the tens of thousands that swarm across our campuses who will take notice? You can google Germar Rudolf and see what the man has been condemned for.

by Bradley Reed Smith on November 14, 2005 at 11:45 PM
I want to suggest, without insulting you in anyway, that arguing for an open debate on the Holocaust is not “denying” that it took place. The skeptic does not have to argue that “it” did not happen, but wants to find out, in a free exchange of ideas, what “it” really was to his own satisfaction, at the same time trying to not be cranky.

by Fred Tepper on November 15, 2005 at 2:14 PM
Bradley, I suspect you fall into Mark's description of a “crank,” because will you EVER believe the Holocaust happened? What more can it take? There's been 60 years of research and evidence. Not to mention the testimony from people who were there. What is there to debate??? It sure sounds to me like nothing can ever change your mind.

by Bradley Reed Smith on November 15, 2005 at 10:51 PM
In any event, the issue is not what I believe or don't believe, but why men are being extradited from America to stand trial in Europe for revisionist thought crimes. I should think that would be of some professional interest to the academic class, but I see no signs of it. With re to what there is to debate: it is there in the work of such men as Samuel Crowell, Serge Thion, Carlo Mattogno, Robert Faurisson, Germar Rudolf, Jurgen Graf, Arthur Butz, Carlos Porter, Fritz Berg and a host of others. If you want to see for yourself I would suggested “The Holocaust Made in Russia” by Porter. And “The Gas Chamber of Sherlock Holmes” by Crowell. And good luck to you.

by Jonathan Dresner on November 17, 2005 at 12:20 AM
And that, my friends, is the Holocaust denier's bibliography right there. A denser rogue's gallery of historiographical atrocities would be hard to compile.

by Bradley Reed Smith on November 17, 2005 at 2:01 PM
Let's agree for the sake of argument that these fellows are all “rogues.” Does it follow that academics should participate in the taboo against open debate on what interests them, and act out the role of “bystanders” when they are imprisoned for revisionist thought crimes. Germar Rudolf was extradited from America to Germany only this week, and he is not in prison there for being a “rogue.” Meanwhile, no academic that I am aware of has published a paper on The Rudolf Report, the book that Rudolf is being punished by the State for writing.

by jack quon on November 15, 2005 at 2:45 PM
Mr. Dresner, In light of your comment, “We have laws against “reckless endangerment”: laws against Holocaust Denial are, in some sense, an extension of that into the realm of historical study. Some falsehoods really pose dangers to the present and future.” One must assume the continuing distortions and denials by the Japanese government over actions throughout Asia from 1936 to 1945, and, which have a direct moral equivalence to Nazis atrocities, does not constitute 'reckless endangerment'. How else to account for the indifferent silence of the U.S., Europe, and those promoting Holocaust education for all.

by Jonathan Dresner on November 17, 2005 at 12:16 AM
Korea and China would be the relevant aggrieved parties, in the case of Japan: neither of them have laws against Holocaust denial or significant investments in Holocaust education, but both governments (all four governments, actually: two Koreas and two/one Chinas) have taken strong diplomatic stands (and the odd riot) against Japanese obscurantism and cover
Japanese atrocities quite thoroughly in their state-run education systems. So it's roughly parallel.

As far as “direct moral equivalence” goes, I'm not really going to argue against it, but there's a narrative difference between Japan's brutal campaigns and occupations on the one hand and Germany's brutal campaigns, occupations and industrialized death camps on the other. It's easier to understand the evil of the Nazi regime, and easier to condemn it without getting into sticky questions of Allied wartime tactics and excesses. For what it's worth, my speciality is modern Japan, and my classes (both Japan and World History) get a pretty full taste of the world-wide horror of WWII.

by Bradley Reed Smith on November 17, 2005 at 2:21 PM
The “industrialized death camps” concept includes the charge that the Germans used gas chambers and gas vans to kill millions of innocent civilians. Revisionism questions that assumption via a significant body of purposefully unexamined work. I am not suggesting that revisionists are right about everything, but that men who write books that pose taboo historical questions should not be imprisoned for thought crimes. I find this a difficult idea (forgive me) to get across to academics.

by Jonathan Dresner on November 17, 2005 at 3:55 PM
Do not mistake my disdain for the researchers you cite or your own conclusions, which is near total, for approval of the criminalization of thought or research.

by Bradley Reed Smith on November 17, 2005 at 8:25 PM
Well, we are in agreement then on the principle issue. Neither of us approves of the criminalization of thought or research. That would suggest to me that when the American Government collaborates with the German Government in extraditing a writer and publisher from America to Germany for writing and publishing ideas that have been criminalized by the German State, that many in the professorial class would denounce the action. I'm waiting. There may be one professor somewhere in America who will argue publicly that intellectual freedom is for all, not for some.

by Bradley Reed Smith on November 17, 2005 at 3:25 PM
With regard to the issue of “moral equivalency,” we might look at it in a way that is probably roguish. When the Americans intentionally burned alive the civilian populations of Nagasaki and Hiroshima (I'll let the rest go for the sake of brevity), they (we) did so for a “greater good.” That is exactly the behavior that the Germans are accused of during WWII — that they intentionally killed innocent, unarmed civilians for what they claimed was a “greater good.” Do the specific weapons matter? Does the ethnicity of the victims matter?

by Frederick Thomas on November 18, 2005 at 12:02 PM
The role of the historian is to characterize historical events acccurately, based upon the verifiable facts. Except in totalitarian countries, it is not to fabricate history according to political convenience, though history has often enough been bastardized for this purpose. The badgering of Mr. Smith in this thread is an embarrassment to the cause of historical inquiry. There is no excuse for criminalizing free historical inquiry, and it pains me that some thought police exist who feel that is so. It reminds one of “Animal Farm.”

It must bother the thought police that so much of the holocaust story has been contradicted factually by for example, the release of the complete detailed Auschwitz records by Russia in 1995, 50 years after they were acquired. These contained the complete list of inmates, their numbers, barracks, beds, assignments, diets, and medical records.

That release caused the NY Times to report that the number of dead at Auschwitz was actually 1,160,000, of all faiths, of which 898,000 died of typhus, and most of the balance of other diseases. The deaths were grouped mainly into the winters of 42 and 43. The records indicated that Auschwitz was an enormous slave – labor manufacturing facility critical to the war in the east, and that Kommandant Hoess was removed after the first epidemic for not preventing it, which badly hurt production and endangered the troops. This is the same Hoess who was later tortured and threatened with the murder of his children at Nueremberg, if he did not claim 4 million died.

The role of Auschwitz was actually confirmed hundreds of times by US and British reconnaissance aircraft, which showed 33 enormous factories, and rows on rows on rows of barracks. OK, this is documented, and looks pretty credible, so it should be reason for any historian of the period to ask the obvious academic questions, and seek corraboration. They can not. They may be arrested by the pigs from “Animal Farm.”

Mr. Smith is apparently a sincere seeker after open historical inquiry. If there are any other such here, they could do well to support as free an inquiry into the history of WW II as they wish for other historical questions.
by Trevor Russell Getz on November 18, 2005 at 11:44 PM
The difference between revisionist historical enquiry and denial in the case of the Holocaust has been so effectively dealt with by Grobman and Shermer in Denying History that it is hardly worth responding to denial posts. However, it is worth noting the following.

1) Evidence for the Holocaust, for the gas chambers, and for the estimate 5.5-6.5 million Jews (as an example) is proven by a CONVERGENCE of evidence. Picking one or two little bits of evidence does not impress. 2) Deniers (as in this post) fail to contextualize, 'believe' any evidence no matter how dubious that supports their points, and fail to build a complex picture using evidence convergence. 3) Deniers may protest, and even call themselves 'revisionists', but in each case in which they have become prominent their links to anti-semitic and often widely racist parties has become quickly evident. 4) Real, honorable, revisionism is made difficult by irresponsible non-history and pseudo-history. There is a group of less well known individuals who similarly deny the Atlantic slave trade.

by Frederick Thomas on November 19, 2005 at 11:41 AM
Mr. Getz, it is difficult to imagine a post so unconvincing as yours. Do you feel that simply reasserting the stupid, the unproven and the highly questionable will help your cause? This post would not convince Alfred E. Newman. Let me see if I can educate you a little:

You are the denier here. You deny the historical reality of hundreds of allied aerial photos, of the factories, of the barracks, of the lack of any gas chambers except for delousing, of the camp records, of the millions of “death camp” survivors, of the epidemilogical records in Europe at that time. Is this enough of a “convergence” to get your attention? These hard facts do not contradict the many deaths, the shootings in the early days of the Russian campaign, the abuse and disease, or the massive slave labor. But they do bring into question the glitz Hollywood version we are asked by your lobby to swallow. (A little hint-nobody believes it anymore.)

All of these facts would make any real historian want to know why they directly contradict the “evidence” of Nuerenburg, most of which which was either questionable, improper, forgeries, Soviet propaganda, or testimony extracted under torture. You are aware that due process was explicitly forbidden at these proceedings at the insistence of the Soviets, and there were no rules of evidence. They were just more Moscow show trials, but they are the entire basis for your case. You deny any evidence which does not support your preordained hypothesis. Thus you try to prevent historical progress even by such rotten means as criminalizing truth seeking, and with an infinitude of childish and boring ad hominems. Mr. Getz, you are not an historian. You are an unskilled propagandist.

Re: Sending in the second team… (#71259)
by Trevor Russell Getz on November 19, 2005 at 6:32 PM
Mr. Thomas.

Well, perhaps I flatter myself by calling myself an historian… that title has always been contested. Gosh knows I am not, nor do I claim to be, a professional scholar of the Holocaust (I am, in fact, an Africanist)! Instead, I merely carefully read a great deal of evidence and put forward my theories, and support those of other scholars whose work seems to follow the epistimological approach. So let me try to illustrate my points by using, conveniently, your diatribe. Keep in mind that in this e-mail I am not putting forward an argument of my own, merely deconstructing yours…. note my comments on the following sections of your post:

Your quote: “Let me see if I can educate you a little”
My response: I translate that as “I have a monopoly on the truth”. I am always a little fearful of those who claim a monopoly on the truth. Note that in my initial e-mail I accepted that revisionism serves a purpose, and that debate is good… just that the works I have read (and I do read it) that deny the Holocaust existed are not academically rigorous. The same might be said about some (but not most) works within the mainstream.

Your post: “You are the denier here. You deny the historical reality of hundreds of allied aerial photos, of the factories, of the barracks, of the lack of any gas chambers except for delousing, of the camp records, of the millions of “death camp” survivors, of the epidemilogical records in Europe at that time. Is this enough of a “convergence” to get your attention?”
My response: This not a convergence. In general, you do not cite evidence but a lack of it. Oh my! And conversely you ignore the evidence that does exist: testimonies of survivors, written documents, aerial photographs that do suggest gassing was taking place, evidence that points to certain structures being used as gas chambers. Karl Popper spoke clearly on this – a theory should replace an alternate theory only if it can explain the existing evidence in a more convincing way. You choose instead to ignore the evidence that does exist and to point to the holes. Do those holes exist? Yes. There are points at which the evidence we would like to have is not there. So what? All historians face this problem in reconstructing the past. Again we deal with convergence and with the preponderance of evidence.

Your quote: “These hard facts do not contradict the many deaths, the shootings in the early days of the Russian campaign, the abuse and disease, or the massive slave labor. But they do bring into question the glitz Hollywood version we are asked by your lobby to swallow. (A little hint-nobody believes it anymore.)”
My response: Er, I'm not sure what 'my lobby is. Are you referring to the fact (evident from my name) that I'm Jewish? That is a typical trick of anti-semites, to assume conspiracy, but I'm going to assume you're anti-semitic, and that you mean the 'lobby' that represents people who think like I do? But I'm not even sure what group that is. I am what I am, the descendent of Holocaust survivors. I have only one further thing to say on this topic: Shermer and Grobman cite a reputable survey that suggests that less than 1% of Russians, Americans, and Britons believe that mass gassing of Jews did not happen…. so I guess some people do still believe it?

YOur quote: “All of these facts would make any real historian want to know why they directly contradict the “evidence” of Nuerenburg, most of which which was either questionable, improper, forgeries, Soviet propaganda, or testimony extracted under torture.”
My response: Another typical trick of pseudo-historians. Anything that you don't agree with was either questionable, improper, forgeries, propoganda, or extracted under torture. Do you really think this is 'history'?

Your quote:”You deny any evidence which does not support your preordained hypothesis. Thus you try to prevent historical progress even by such rotten means as criminalizing truth seeking, and with an infinitude of childish and boring ad hominems.”

My response: The first sentence is ironic if you read your own last paraggraph. As for the rest… why do you assume that I do not accept and even support the right of even the most neo-Nazi Holocaust denier to speak freely? As a card-carrying member of the ACLU, I can tell you that I do support their rights. You are, sir, quite simply incorrect here.

Your quote: “Mr. Getz, you are not an historian. You are an unskilled propagandist.”
My response: Let the readers judge for themselves. In fact, I'm asking my graduate students to read this exchange verbatim, in the interests of free discourse and their own education. Since you brought it up, however, I would like to ask on what basis you call yourself a historian? My publication record stands for you to see should you wish to do so.

Re: Sending in the second team… (#71263)
by Bradley Smith on November 19, 2005 at 9:19 PM
Mr. Getz:
Let me address one issue that you mention to forward my argument that the academic class in America evades its responsibility with regard to the history of WWII, and collaborates with European governments in criminalizing those who do.

Survivor testimony. It plays a major role in the orthodox story, and in America it is taboo to question it. In Europe is is a criminal act.

One example.
Elie Wiesel claims that after Jews were executed at Babi Yar in the Ukraine, “geysers of blood continued to spurt from their grave for months afterward.” I suppose you will agree that while this is a wonderfully inventive fantasy, it's rather too moronic to take seriously. Unless you're a survivor. Only a “hater” would question the truthfullness of such a claim.

John Silber of Boston U. got on my case about my questioning this one, pointing out that Wiesel had not said that he had seen that phenomenon with his own eyes, but was only repeating what others (survivors) had said.

True enough. Wiesel was repeating the testimony of other Holocaust survivors. They were all in it together, their purpose (one can only guess) to forward the “unique monstrosity” of the Germans. How is Wiesel looked upon by the professorial class? He is “untouchable.”

Survivor testimony is accepted at face value by the profesorial class, while those who question it are routinely slandered or ignored, and in Europe condemned to prison for “inciting racial hate.”

Here is Mr. Wiesel himself on hate:

“Every Jew, somewhere in his being, should set apart a zone of hate, “healthy virile hate,“ for what the German personifies and for what persists in the German.” (Legends of Our Time, “Appointment With Hate,” NY, Avon, 1968, pp. 177-178.)

Where, in the academic community, are those who would dare identify this statement by the most famous living Holocaust survivor/professor for what it is? Publicly?

It's a good thing to belong to the ACLU. It would be a good thing for the ACLU to start taking seriously its responsiblities toward writers and publishers who are imprisoned, with the collaboration of the American government, for expressing skepticisim about survivor “testimony” of the Elie Wiesels of the world.

Re: Sending in the second team… (#71274)
by Trevor Russell Getz on November 20, 2005 at 12:06 AM
Thank you for your even-handed response. Your point is well taken. I myself tend to embrace a very wide understanding of freedom of speech, and I am against the extreme limitations placed on revisionists or deniers in Europe. However, I continue to find their arguments unconvincing when closely evaluated, and to be disturbed by many of their connections to racist and anti-Semitic groups.

Moreover, as in the case of the intelligent design issue, I am not yet convinced that the denier's motives are often honorable.

There may well be extremists among the Holocaust believers, as well as the deniers. However, the responsible scholars who occupy the middle ground (and I do not accept others categories here, but judge each on its own merit based on my training as an historian)have created a convergence of evidence that so far remains to be challenged.

Re: Sending in the second team… (#71299)
by Bradley Smith on November 20, 2005 at 2:59 PM
It's true that “extreamists,” primarily anti-semites, are associated with revisionism. It's a serious issue for Jews, and for revisionists themselves. Being identified as an anti-semite, particularly if you are not one, is no walk in the park. It will destroy your social life (if your circle is not made up of anti-semites), and it will destroy any possibility for a public career that you might have in mind. This is why revisionists, if they have real jobs, keep their views on these matters secret. For revisionists in America, it's rather like living in North Korea. Your struggle for intellectual freedom must be pursued in secret, or you wlll lose everything.

The Jewish catastrophe in Europe during the Hitlerian regime was immense. It is told in an immense collection of “war stories.” Like all collections of war stories, some are true, some are false. What could be more commonplace? The professorial class has made a public, though unacknowledged, decision to discourage independent work that asserts that it has separeted some part of the wheat from the chaff.

The demonstrable falsehoods in the orthodox Holocaust story are the weapons of choice for those who don't like Jews. While Jews did not institutionalize the story, they picked up the ball and ran with it. It's become largely a Jewish story. What easier way to attack Jews as Jews than to point out demonstrable falsehoods that mainline Jewish orgnaziations are forwarding with a punitive obsession that I do not see anywhere else, outside of the U.S. government itself.

This is a problem easily rectified (he says). The first thing to do would be to begin to remove from the Holocaust story those parts of it that hve been shown to be demonstrably false, depriving anti-semites of the most easily available weapons to hand to beat up on Jews with. Oddly, but obviously, that is the work of revisionism–which is not political (though it is used by those who are) but a simple process of a routine examination of a historical event.

The irony is obvious. When the professorial class agrees to agree that revisionist work will not be addressed in the routine way that all other historiacal work is addressed, they collaborate in handing over a good part of the field to those who would exploit revisionist arguments about WWII for policical and “racial” ends.

Example: When Arthur Butz published his Hoax of the Twentieth Century in 1977, he and his book were roundly condemned, and I will have to say salndered, from the get go. The professors, as a class, denounced him, and some tried to get him fired from his position at Northwestern.

After 30 years, nothing has changed. Butz and the Hoax are routinely slandered (I mean slandered!)and condemned by academics — but here is the kicker. To the best of my knowledge, even after the passage of 30 (!) years, not one academic has published a professional paper demonstrating where Butz is wrong in anything he said.

In The Hoax, Butz has almost certainly gotten some facts wrong, and misinterpreted others. That's how it is with writing history. Nobody's perfect. But what would the professor do, once he had done that, with what would be left over — we are not going to suggest that Butz is wrong about “everything,” are we. Will the professor acknowledge that Butz was right about the rest of it? Hardly. Not in America. Certainly not in Europe.

I could note the same comments about other revisionists, including some who have tempers and share political beliefs that I might not. Carlos Porter would be a good example. No professor “dares” write a serious paper on his The Holocaust: Made In Russia, which examines some of the Nuremberg documents.

So–it is common for professors to write journalism about revisionist arguments–Deborah Lipstadt for example. It is common for revisionist arguments to be suppressed and revisionists to be punished for their work. And it is commonplace for anti-semites to use revisionist arguments, which are never specifically challenged by the professors, to beat up on Jews with.

The more things change. . . .

Re: The Role of the Historian… (#71245)
by E. Simon on November 19, 2005 at 11:54 AM
Yes, no “gas chambers except for delousing.” That's right! – Zyklon B was an insecticide. So there we have it.

This should really not be seen as a response to #71243, which I might have said doesn't merit one. Saying that the post rather speaks for itself is a better way of putting it.

Re: The Role of the Historian… (#71248)
by Bradley Reed Smith on November 19, 2005 at 2:24 PM
I'm not an academic. I was 49 years old in 1979 when I discovered that something might be wrong with the Auschwitz gas-chamber story. I was stunned. Over the next few years I discovered that much of what I had believed about the Holocaust all my adult life, without a single moment of doubt, was coming unraveled.

I had believed that tens of thousands of Jews and others had been murdered in gas chambers at Dachau. I had believed that Germans skinned Jews to make lamp shades and riding breeches from their hides. I believed Germans had cooked Jews to make hand soap from their fat. I believed that four millions, mostly Jews, had been murdered in gas chambers at Auschwitz. I was wrong about all of it.

The Jews of Europe suffered a catastrophe during the Hitlerian regime. So did many other peoples. But those stories that go to the “unique monstrosity” of the Germans appear to be largely false –I emphasize the word “unique.”

Anyhow, the whole business was taboo, I recognized that from the start. It still is. But now it is becoming a criminal act to question even the most moronic stories of unique German monstrosity.

Taboo, slander, criminalization — that is how the orthodox, academic history of the Holocaust is protected from free inquiry. Who is willing to risk his career, and even his freedom, to question what all the best people say is true?

Re: The Role of the Historian… (#71275)
by E. Simon on November 20, 2005 at 12:11 AM
Yes, I believed that the sun was eight light-minutes away from the earth until I reached out with my hand and realized that I could visually grasp it between my fingers. What's the length of my arm, again?

Re: The Role of the Historian… (#71292)
by Bradley Reed Smith on November 20, 2005 at 1:44 PM
Well, it makes sense to me that you would not want to take seriously how extensively the Holocaust story has been revised over the last 40 years, how much “eyewitness” testimony has been shown to be false, how many “original” documents shown to be not original — and so on and so on.

If you were to take it seriously you might feel some kind of inner urge to condemn publicly the suppression, censorship, and incarceration of those who do find it a serious matter. I can assure you that it would create a considerable bother for you in both your academic life, and your personal life. No one who has a good job really needs that kind of bother. Good luck to you, and smooth sailing.

Re: Sending in the second team… (#71274)
by Trevor Russell Getz on November 20, 2005 at 12:06 AM
Thank you for your even-handed response. Your point is well taken. I myself tend to embrace a very wide understanding of freedom of speech, and I am against the extreme limitations placed on revisionists or deniers in Europe. However, I continue to find their arguments unconvincing when closely evaluated, and to be disturbed by many of their connections to racist and anti-Semitic groups.

Moreover, as in the case of the intelligent design issue, I am not yet convinced that the denier's motives are often honorable.

There may well be extremists among the Holocaust believers, as well as the deniers. However, the responsible scholars who occupy the middle ground (and I do not accept others categories here, but judge each on its own merit based on my training as an historian)have created a convergence of evidence that so far remains to be challenged.

Re: Sending in the second team… (#71299)
by Bradley Reed Smith on November 20, 2005 at 2:59 PM
It's true that “extremists,” primarily anti-semites, are associated with revisionism. It's a serious issue for Jews, and for revisionists themselves. Being identified as an anti-semite, particularly if you are not one, is no walk in the park. It will destroy your social life (if your circle is not made up of anti-semites), and it will destroy any possibility for a public career that you might have in mind. This is why revisionists, if they have real jobs, keep their views on these matters secret. For revisionists in America, it's rather like living in North Korea. Your struggle for intellectual freedom must be pursued in secret, or you will lose everything.

The Jewish catastrophe in Europe during the Hitlerian regime was immense. It is told in an immense collection of “war stories.” Like all collections of war stories, some are true, some are false. What could be more commonplace? The professorial class has made a public, though unacknowledged, decision to discourage independent work that asserts that it has separated some part of the wheat from the chaff.

The demonstrable falsehoods in the orthodox Holocaust story are the weapons of choice for those who don't like Jews. While Jews did not institutionalize the story, they picked up the ball and ran with it. It's become largely a Jewish story. What easier way to attack Jews as Jews than to point out demonstrable falsehoods that mainline Jewish organizations are forwarding with a punitive obsession that I do not see anywhere else, outside of the U.S. government itself.

This is a problem easily rectified (he says). The first thing to do would be to begin to remove from the Holocaust story those parts of it that have been shown to be demonstrably false, depriving anti-semites of the most easily available weapons to hand to beat up on Jews with. Oddly, but obviously, that is the work of revisionism–which is not political (though it is used by those who are) but a simple process of a routine examination of a historical event.

The irony is obvious. When the professorial class agrees to agree that revisionist work will not be addressed in the routine way that all other historical work is addressed, they collaborate in handing over a good part of the field to those who would exploit revisionist arguments about WWII for political and “racial” ends.

Example: When Arthur Butz published his Hoax of the Twentieth Century in 1977, he and his book were roundly condemned, and I will have to say slandered, from the get go. The professors, as a class, denounced him, and some tried to get him fired from his position at Northwestern.

After 30 years, nothing has changed. Butz and the Hoax are routinely slandered (I mean slandered!) and condemned by academics — but here is the kicker. To the best of my knowledge, even after the passage of 30 (!) years, not one academic has published a professional paper demonstrating where Butz is wrong in anything he said.

In The Hoax, Butz has almost certainly gotten some facts wrong, and misinterpreted others. That's how it is with writing history. Nobody's perfect. But what would the professor do, once he had done that, with what would be left over — we are not going to suggest that Butz is wrong about “everything,” are we? Will the professor acknowledge that Butz was right about the rest of it? Hardly. Not in America. Certainly not in Europe.

I could note the same comments about other revisionists, including some who have tempers and share political beliefs that I might not. Carlos Porter would be a good example. No professor “dares” write a serious paper on his The Holocaust: Made In Russia, which examines some of the Nuremberg documents.

So–it is common for professors to write journalism about revisionist arguments–Deborah Lipstadt for example. It is common for revisionist arguments to be suppressed and revisionists to be punished for their work. And it is commonplace for anti-semites to use revisionist arguments, which are never specifically challenged by the professors, to beat up on Jews with.

The more things change. . . .

Re: The Role of the Historian… (#71275)
by E. Simon on November 20, 2005 at 12:11 AM
Yes, I believed that the sun was eight light-minutes away from the earth until I reached out with my hand and realized that I could visually grasp it between my fingers. What's the length of my arm, again?

Re: The Role of the Historian… (#71292)
by Bradley Smith on November 20, 2005 at 1:44 PM
Well, it makes sense to me that you would not want to take seriously how extensively the Holocaust story has been revised over the last 40 years, how much “eyewitness” testmony has been shown to be false, how many “original” documents shown to be not original — and so on and so on.

If you were to take it seriously you might feel some kind of inner urge to condemn publicly the suppression, censorship, and incarceration of those who do find it a serious matter. I can assure you that it would create a considerable bother for you in both your academic life, and your personal life. No one who has a good job really needs that kind of bother. Good luck to you, and smooth sailing.

Re: Intellegent design and Holocaust “denial” (#72269)
by Aryeh Tuchman on December 9, 2005 at 2:26 PM
I realize I'm a bit late in joining this conversation, but I just wanted to add, in case you were not aware, that Bradley Smith is a noted Holocaust denier in his own right. He has campaigned to promote Holocaust denial on college campuses since the late 1980s, and last year spoke at a conference co-sponsored by the Institute for Historical Review and the neo-Nazi National Alliance. More information is available at http://www.adl.org/learn/ext_us/smith_codoh.asp?LEARN_Cat=Extremism&LEARN_SubCat=Extremism_in_America&xpicked=2&item=10.

Re: Intellegent design and Holocaust “denial” (#72304)
by Bradley Smith on December 10, 2005 at 2:05 AM
Better late than never (to coin a phrase) Mr. Tuchman. If the good people who read this back and forth want to discover a dispassionate, fair, and thoughtful profile of someone who questions the gas-chamber stories, there is certainly no better place to begin than with the dispassionate, fair, and even-handed people at the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith.

The next place to look would be the web page of such an individual, maybe at www.breakhisbones.com . As Bill O'Reilly has it: Smith reports, you decide.

AND WITH THIS THE EXCHANGE ENDED.