The Nizkor Project: Remembering the Holocaust (Shoah)

Shofar FTP Archive File: people/r/raven.greg/1996/raven.1196

From Sat Nov  2 09:31:10 PST 1996
Article: 78223 of alt.revisionism
From: Greg Raven 
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: [Fwd: Re: One More Time: Holocaust Proof]
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1996 18:49:41 -0800
Organization: Institute for Historical Review
Lines: 44
Message-ID: <>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Macintosh; I; 68K)
Content-Disposition: inline

Message-ID: <>
Date: Sun, 27 Oct 1996 13:39:29 -0800
From: Greg Raven 
Organization: Institute for Historical Review
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Macintosh; I; 68K)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism,alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: One More Time: Holocaust Proof
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Kathleen Mulhern wrote:
> I'll try this one more time, and since I have already included portions of
> this book in responses and they have, mysteriously, never recieved a
> reply, I'll try it this one last time:
> The book: _Auschwitz: 1270 to the Present_.  The authors: Deborah Dwork
> and Robert Jan van Pelt.  The publisher:W.W. Norton & Company, Inc., 500
> Fifth Avenue, New York, NY  10110.  Copyright 1996 by the authors.
> Page 222: "Design of a Degesch Zyklon B gas chamber.  Osobyi Archive,
> Moscow, coll. 502/1, file 322.  The tin with Zyklon B (5) is opened by a
> lever (3) connected to a tin opener (4); the Zyklon B crystals fall on a
> tray (6) and are heated by a hot-air blower (9) to facilitate
> evaporation."
> (snip)

Interesting description of the introduction of gas in a delousing
chamber, but unfortunately this contradicts so-called testimonies of how
the Zyklon B was introduction into the alleged homicidal gas chambers.

We know the delausing chambers existed, and we know how they functioned.
We are still awaiting proof of the existence of a Nazi gas chamber for
homicidal purposes.

Greg Raven (
PO Box 10545, Costa Mesa, CA 92627

From Wed Nov 13 06:28:04 PST 1996
Article: 79205 of alt.revisionism
From: Greg Raven 
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Mr. Raven, please explain the contradiction
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 15:51:26 -0900
Organization: Institute for Historical Review
Lines: 47
Message-ID: <>
References: <>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Macintosh; I; PPC)
To: Jamie McCarthy 

Jamie McCarthy wrote:
> (A copy of this message has also been posted to the following newsgroups:
> alt.revisionism)
> Mr. Raven, I'm glad to see your recent spate of posts to Usenet, which
> I interpret, I hope correctly, that you still believe Usenet to be a
> forum appropriate for the discussion of the Holocaust and related
> matters.  So I look forward to your response to this post.
> You were interviewed by the L.A. Times for a story which saw print on
> October 28, two weeks ago.  You were quoted as saying:
>    "We do not deny the existence of the Holocaust," he said. "That's
>    a lie put forth by our opposition. We do say the claims of the
>    Holocaust have been exaggerated. We believe there was no Nazi plan
>    to exterminate the Jews during World War II. We also believe there
>    were no Nazi gas chambers, and we also believe that 6 million
>    Jewish victims [of the Holocaust] is an irresponsible
>    exaggeration."
> You say (1) "6 million ... is an irresponsible exaggeration," (2) "no
> Nazi plan," and (3) "no Nazi gas chambers."  You're being quite
> consistent, since you explained your views in almost exactly the same
> words on your first big entrance to the Internet, on Hitler's birthday,
> 1994.

It never fails to amaze me to learn how closely people of your sexual
preference keep track of Hitler's birthday. I have no record of my first
day on the Internet, and I couldn't care less about Hitler's birthday.

> The problem, Mr. Raven, is that you also define the term Holocaust as
> (1) "the murder of six million Jews," (2) "as a central act of state by
> the Nazis," (3) "many in gas chambers."
> (snip)

I do? If you were paying as much attention to what I actually say and
write on this subject as you do to Hitler's birthday, you would have
long ago discovered that this is NOT my definition of "the Holocaust." I
direct your attention to the following URL:

Greg Raven (
PO Box 10545, Costa Mesa, CA 92627

From Wed Nov 13 06:28:05 PST 1996
Article: 79208 of alt.revisionism
From: Greg Raven 
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Mr. Raven, please explain the contradiction
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 15:47:06 -0900
Organization: Institute for Historical Review
Lines: 720
Message-ID: <>
References: <>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------488E5DA93CD4"
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Macintosh; I; PPC)
To: Jamie McCarthy 

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Jamie McCarthy wrote:
> (A copy of this message has also been posted to the following newsgroups:
> alt.revisionism)
> Mr. Raven, I'm glad to see your recent spate of posts to Usenet, which
> I interpret, I hope correctly, that you still believe Usenet to be a
> forum appropriate for the discussion of the Holocaust and related
> matters.  So I look forward to your response to this post.
> You were interviewed by the L.A. Times for a story which saw print on
> October 28, two weeks ago.  You were quoted as saying:
>    "We do not deny the existence of the Holocaust," he said. "That's
>    a lie put forth by our opposition. We do say the claims of the
>    Holocaust have been exaggerated. We believe there was no Nazi plan
>    to exterminate the Jews during World War II. We also believe there
>    were no Nazi gas chambers, and we also believe that 6 million
>    Jewish victims [of the Holocaust] is an irresponsible
>    exaggeration."
> You say (1) "6 million ... is an irresponsible exaggeration," (2) "no
> Nazi plan," and (3) "no Nazi gas chambers."  You're being quite
> consistent, since you explained your views in almost exactly the same
> words on your first big entrance to the Internet, on Hitler's birthday,
> 1994.

It never fails to amaze me to learn how closely people of your sexual
preference keep track of Hitler's birthday. I have no record of my first
day on the Internet, and I couldn't care less about Hitler's birthday.

> The problem, Mr. Raven, is that you also define the term Holocaust as
> (1) "the murder of six million Jews," (2) "as a central act of state by
> the Nazis," (3) "many in gas chambers."
> (snip)

I do? If you were paying as much attention to what I actually say and
write on this subject as you do to Hitler's birthday, you would have
long ago discovered that this is NOT my definition of "the Holocaust."

Greg Raven (
PO Box 10545, Costa Mesa, CA 92627

Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; name="definition.html"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline; filename="definition.html"

Defining 'Holocaust': A proposal

by Greg Raven

Although there are thousands of books about aspects of the plight of
European Jews during the Second World War, few define with any precision
what they mean by the term that has come to represent this plight:
"Holocaust." Often, "Holocaust" is used in the same paragraph as references
to six million Jewish dead, genocide, the "Final Solution," gas chambers,
crematories, and words that imply mass murder and extermination, without
explicitly establishing the relationship (if any) among these concepts, and
without defining the central term itself.

Typical of associative technique of defining the Holocaust is President Bill
Clinton's speech at the dedication of the US Holocaust Memorial Museum:

     The Holocaust began when the most civilized country of its day
     unleashed unprecedented acts of cruelty and hatred abetted by
     perversions of science, philosophy, and law. Millions died for who
     they were, how they worshiped, what they believed, and who they
     loved. But one people - the Jews - were immutably marked for total
     destruction. They who were among their nation's most patriotic
     citizens, whose extinction served no military purpose nor offered
     any political gain, they who threatened no one were slaughtered by
     an efficient, unrelenting bureaucracy, dedicated solely to a
     radical evil with a curiously antiseptic title: The Final

While it can be argued that politicians must master the art of talking
without saying anything, historians do not have that luxury.


A good example of the confusion that can arise when attempting to discuss
the Holocaust without a prior understanding about the central term can be
seen in the article "Proving The Holocaust" by Michael Shermer, editor of
Skeptic magazine. Shermer introduces his article with an attempt to
eliminate Holocaust revisionism (and revisionists) by unilaterally
redefining the term "Holocaust." While so attempting, he presents three
different definitions.


     The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) gives a historical usage of
     "complete destruction, especially of a large number of persons; a
     great slaughter or massacre" (caust - burn, holo - whole). By this
     definition, then, the Nazis attempted a holocaust since they did
     not succeed in completely exterminating European Jewry. But
     Holocaust historians mean something much more specific.


     The Holocaust, according to the Director of the Research Institute
     of U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum, Michael Berenbaum, is "the
     systematic state-sponsored murder of six million Jews by the Nazis
     and their collaborators during World War II; as night descended,
     millions of others were killed in its wake." Please note the
     clause following the semicolon. Holocaust revisionists complain
     that Holocaust histories, as well as the museum, concentrate too
     much on Jews and ignore the millions of others who were persecuted
     and killed. Obviously they do not, nor does the museum. Capital
     "H" Holocaust, then, specifically refers to the Nazi Holocaust
     against the Jews.

And finally:

     In this analysis I mean by the Holocaust: The intentional or
     functional near-destruction of a people based primarily on race.

Shermer's difficulties with defining the very term describing the event he
has set out to "prove" indicates that a common definition is badly needed.
In his first example Shermer mischaracterizes one of the OED's general
definitions of "holocaust" as a "historical" one (while failing to note that
the OED has a specific definition of the "Holocaust," see below). He also
implies that the Nazis may not be guilty of the Holocaust.

In his second example Shermer falsely asserts that the clause following
Berenbaum's definition somehow eliminates the Judeo-centric nature of the
word "Holocaust." He next flatly contradicts what he erroneously claims
Berenbaum means, while creating a circular definition that the "Holocaust,
then, specifically refers to the Nazi Holocaust against the Jews." Shermer's
own definition is so vague and all-inclusive as to be worthless for anything
approaching a serious study of the topic, although it is interesting to see
that he implies that Jews are a race.

It is worth noting that Shermer himself seems dissatisfied with his
definition as presented in this article. In correspondence with Journal
editor Mark Weber in 1996, Shermer wrote:

     I define the Holocaust as the functional intent on the part of the
     Nazis to exterminate European Jewry.

The phrase "functional intent," whatever that means, seems to categorize the
Holocaust as a thought crime, wherein the Nazis had some "nonfunctional" (or
dysfunctional?) ideas about exterminating European Jews, which were okay.
They transgressed by having "functional" ideas about Jewish extermination.
In this definition, it is not necessary for any Jew to have been harmed in
any way for the Nazis to have been guilty of the Holocaust, a characteristic
of thought crimes.

This may be a worst-case scenario, but even revisionists have been remiss in
defining the term "Holocaust:" most revisionist works, while acknowledging
the tragedy of the Jews during the Second World War, focus on what did not
happen during the "Holocaust," rarely supplying a definition (either
revisionist or otherwise) for the event or events that should be classed
under the heading "Holocaust."

The Nuremberg connection

However defined, the events that make up the Holocaust are usually
derivative of the evidence presented against the Nazis at the post-war
Nuremberg Trials. The word "Holocaust," however, was neither used nor
defined at these trials - or by the Nazis themselves, for that matter: most
of the elements of what is referred to as the "Holocaust" fell under the
charge of "Crimes Against Humanity," the last of the four counts of
"criminal activities" charged against the Nazi leaders.

In the nearly fifty years since the end of the Nuremberg Trials, much of the
"evidence" presented at the Trials has been discredited. The testimony of
Auschwitz commandant Rudolf Hšss, the backbone of most "Holocaust" works,
was obtained by torture, and contains numerous errors of fact. Although
these errors have long been known, only recently have anti-revisionist
historians begun to wean themselves away from Hšss. Likewise, human-skin
lampshades, soap made from the bodies of Jews, and various bizarre and
arcane methods of mass murder have all been quietly dropped, and even the
death figures for Auschwitz have been drastically reduced. In spite of this,
widely-held perceptions of the "Holocaust" in all its former glory persist
as if we have learned nothing in the intervening years, and the findings of
the Nuremberg Tribunal are still as fresh and as valid as when they were
announced on October 1, 1946.

Traditional definitions

It is important to remember that, although the word "Holocaust" -
capitalized to denote a more or less specific set of events - is now in
common parlance, it is a relatively recent addition to the language in its
current sense. According to the Oxford English Dictionary:

     The specific application [of the use of the word "holocaust" in
     the phrase "the Holocaust"] was introduced by historians during
     the 1950s, probably as an equivalent to Heb[rew] hurban and shoah
     'catastrophe' (used in the same sense); but it had been
     foreshadowed by contemporary references to the Nazi atrocities as
     a 'holocaust' (sense 2 c): The term is in common use among Jews,
     but seems to be otherwise relatively rare except among

As examples of this foreshadowing, the OED gives the following citations:

     1942 News Chronicle 5 Dec. 2/2 Holocaust Nothing else in Hitler's
     record is comparable to his treatment of the Jews The word has
     gone forth that the Jewish peoples are to be exterminated The
     conscience of humanity stands aghast.

     1943 Hansard Lords 23 Mar. 826 The Nazis go on killing If this
     rule could be relaxed, some hundreds, and possibly a few
     thousands, might be enabled to escape from this holocaust.

To the examples cited by the OED, we can add:

   * The American Hebrew of October 31, 1919, refers to a "holocaust of
     human life" in an article describing the fate of "six million men and
     women" Jews said to be suffering at the hands of the Germans.
   * In an article on Adolf Hitler entitled "The War World," author Bernard
     Lansing writes: "His [Hitler's] eyes sparkling with faith and decision,
     he has proved that he could summon the holocaust."
   * During the Second World War, the Jewish Telegraph Agency alleged Nazi
     cruelties toward Jews that included victims being thrown into a "huge
     boiler which was used for rendering hog fat" under which was built a
     fire. "Old women as well as children perished in this holocaust,"
     reported the JTA.

The OED goes on to offer some post-war uses of "holocaust":

     1945 M. R. Cohen in S. Goldschmidt Legal Claims against Germany, Millions of surviving victims of the Nazi holocaust, Jews
     and non-Jews, will stand before us in the years to come.

     1957 Yad Vashem Bulletin Apr. 35/2 "Research on the Holocaust

     1958 Ibid. July 2/2 The catastrophe which overtook us The
     Inquisition is not the same as the Holocaust.

     1962 B. Glanville. Diamond xviii. 296 The holocaust was the
     inevitable end, the logical conclusion of the pogroms, the Mosley
     marches, the hatred.

     1965 A. Donat (title) The Holocaust Kingdom. New York: Holt,
     Rinehart and Winston.

     1967 N. Cohn Warrant for Genocide. ix. 208 By the autumn of 1944
     the holocaust was nearing its conclusion.

     1968 Manchester Guardian Weekly. 25 Apr. 10/4 There is now within
     modern history a compartment of "holocaust studies" - dealing with
     the wholesale destruction by the Nazis of European Jewry.

     1972 F. Forsyth Odessa File. 306 The mausoleum of Yad Vashem the
     shrine to six million of his fellow Jews who died in the

     On April 18, 1980, the Jewish Chronicle wrote of "A memorial
     service to mark Holocaust Day."

The OED and Nora Levin's 1968 book The Holocaust notwithstanding, usage of
"holocaust" to describe the Jewish catastrophe during the Third Reich
usually appeared in the lower case until the late-1970s, when it was used at
all. Two of the most important early Holocaust works - Gerald Reitlinger's
1953 The Final Solution and Raul Hilberg's 1961 The Destruction of the
European Jews avoid the word "Holocaust." Even the 1965 odition of the 1963
book, The Holocaust Kingdom (mentioned above), scarcely uses the word
"holocaust" outside of the title, and even then it is not capitalized.

Neither is "holocaust" used in revisionist Paul Rassinier's writings from
the early 1960s, and Arthur Butz' 1976 book The Hoax of the Twentieth
Century uses the word "holocaust" infrequently, and always in the lower
case. Butz also cites an article in the New York Times dated December 13,
1942, that states, "The slaughter of a third of the Jewish population in
Hitler's domain and the threatened slaughter of all is a holocaust without

Even reference works, including encyclopedias and dictionaries, show no
listings under "Holocaust" until 1978. For example, the 1976 CBS News
Almanac makes passing reference to "the Nazi holocaust that took the lives
of six million Jews," while the 1976 Information Please Almanac makes no
mention of the Holocaust. Three years later, however, the 1979 edition of
the Information Please Almanac not only refers to the Holocaust in its
timeline of history, but also explicitly defines the term in a lengthy
sidebar (see below).

A computerized search shows that no Ph.D. dissertations prior to 1970 used
the word "Holocaust" in the title, while between 1970 and 1975 there were
21, with 97 dissertations between 1976 and 1980, and 274 between 1981 and

The turning point was the four-part NBC miniseries "Holocaust," which aired
in April of 1978. By the next year, Congress had approved plans for the U.S.
Holocaust Memorial Museum, and from that point on, "holocaust" became
"Holocaust" when describing the fate of the Jews during the Second World
War. Ironically, the book of the same name by author Gerald Green, also
published in April 1978, uses the form "holocaust" in the text.

Before stating a revisionist definition of "Holocaust," it is instructive to
look at existing definitions to see where they are lacking. Existing
definitions may be separated into four main categories: 1) central act of
life as we know it, 2) more or less specific claims of extermination in
death camps, 3) less specific claims of extermination, and 4) a combination
of mistreatment and extermination. In two of these categories, there are
examples of the word applying both to Jews alone and to Jews accompanied by
non-Jews, with the Jews at the forefront.

Central act of life as we know it

The most overheated and least nuanced definitions are those derived from
theological and quasi-theological discussions of the "Holocaust," such as
the statement by Abraham Foxman, National Director of the Anti-Defamation
League of B'nai B'rith (ADL On the Frontline, January 1994, p. 2)

     The Holocaust is something different. It is a singular event. It
     is not simply one example of genocide but a near successful
     attempt on the life of God's chosen children and, thus, on God

>From  a historical point of view, no discussion of how the Nazis attempted to
kill God is likely to result in any useful insights. Some, such as Michael
Berenbaum of the US Holocaust Memorial Museum, have attempted to elevate the
Holocaust to a similar position, but from the secular side.

Extermination of Jews in camps

In the American Jewish Committee/Gallup Poll conducted 1993, "Holocaust" is
defined as:

     usually referring to the killing of millions of Jews in Nazi death

The 1989 version of Webster's Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the
English Language agrees:

     3. the Holocaust, the systematic mass extermination of European
     Jews in Nazi concentration camps prior to and during World War II.

This definition could be said to "deny" the deaths of Jews in the Eastern
territories and elsewhere, and the often brutal but non-fatal mistreatment
of Jews during the war, both of which are acknowledged by revisionists. Jews
murdered by the Soviets during the war are likewise not included; the Nazis
(and by extension the German people) as the sole perpetrators. Because of
its overly-narrow focus, this definition eliminates the possibility of
anyone being a "Holocaust survivor."

Extermination of Jews

The definition of the Holocaust as a Jewish-only event is concisely
expressed by one of the first reference books to include a separate
definition for "Holocaust:"

     holocaust 2. - the Holocaust the systematic destruction of over
     six million European Jews by the Nazis before and during World War

Like other definitions in this category, this definition incompasses all
Jewish deaths, but only at the hands of the Nazis, and again brutalities of
any type are overlooked. The implication is that either no Jewish deaths
were accidental or incidental, or that accidental and/or incidental Jewish
deaths are not included in the Holocaust. This definition thus suffers the
same deficiencies as those of the category above.

It is worth noting that there are many dictionaries published after 1978
that, while showing a definition for "holocaust" as a more or less generic
term, do not mention "Holocaust." Looking at the early definitions shows,
however, that "Holocaust" has never been precisely defined in any universal
way. The Information Please Almanac 1979, for example, overreaches itself in
attempting to come to grips with the term:

     The Holocaust (1933Ðp;1945) is the term describing the Nazi
     annihilation of about 6 million Jews (two thirds of the pre-World
     War II European Jewish population), including 4,500,000 from
     Russia, Poland, and the Baltic; 750,000 from Hungary and Romania;
     290,000 from Germany and Austria; 105,000 from The Netherlands;
     90,000 from France; 54,000 from Greece, etc.

Aside from the questionable numbers of Jewish victims, this definition
implies that the Nazis started "annihilating" Jews as soon as they came to
power in 1933, and it excludes non-German participation. Other such
definitions are commonplace:

     holocaust 2. Holocaust. The mass murder of the Jews carried out by
     the Nazi government of Germany

In 19?? the ADL and the National Council for Social Studies offered the
following definition:

     Holocaust: Term devised in the late 1950s to describe the Nazi
     program of the wholesale physical annihilation of European Jewry.
     Connotes unprecedented phenomenon of human destruction. By the end
     of World War II, it was estimated that some 5.7 million Jews had
     perished as a result of the systematic and racial program of the

This is better, but later the ADL offered a simplified definition:

     Holocaust - from the Hebrew word "olah" which means "burnt
     offering." The term is used to describe the murder of six million
     Jews by the Nazis.

"Holocaust" is from the Greek holokaustos (from which comes the Latin
holocaustum) a combination of holos, which means "whole," and kaustos, which
means "burnt." There may be some relationship between olah and holocaustos,
but it is inaccurate to imply that "Holocaust" comes directly from a Hebrew
word of slightly different meaning.

The exclusively Jewish nature of the Holocaust sometimes is threatened in
the scramble for politically-correct victimhood by other groups, but the
Judeo-centric nature of the Holocaust is zealously guarded:

     In this [President Carter's] most disturbing statement, the
     Holocaust is re-defined to include the sum total of all the
     atrocities committed by the Nazis The Holocaust in this view is no
     longer a unique historical event but a hold-all term for "the
     inhumanity of man to man," and similar generalizations. Not only
     were the six million Jews murdered by their enemies; they now
     stand in danger of having their unique martyrdom obliterated by
     their friends.

     Jews were killed for the crime of being born. Their destruction
     was a sacral act. Even the method of their murder after 1941-
     gassing - was different: only a few thousand gypsies and a smaller
     number of Soviet prisoners of war shared the fate of millions of
     Jews. The place of the Jews in the Nazi world was unique, and was
     related to the unique history of the Jewish people and their
     historical relationship to the non-Jewish world.

Or, to put it succinctly (if incorrectly):

     To be precise, the Holocaust was the Nazi extermination of Jews
     during the Second World War.

The conservative Oxford English Dictionary imperfectly cited by Shermer (see
above) echoes the theme of Nazi and Jewish exclusivity, but leaves itself an
out by allowing the same term to be used to describe other groups:

     holocaust 2. d. the Holocaust: the mass murder of the Jews by the
     Nazis in the war of 1939-1945. Also used transf., of the similar
     fate of other groups; and attrib.

Some definitions not only restrict the Holocaust's victims to Jews, they
multiply the effect by muliplying the perpetrators, which eliminates the
claim of sole Nazi guilt:

     The Holocaust, Shoah in Hebrew, is the most tragic era in the
     history of the Jewish peple - 1933 to 1945 - when the Germans and
     their collaborators perpetrated genocide against them. By the end
     of the Second World War, the Nazis and their minions had managed
     to put some six million Jews to death and destroy thousands of
     Jewish communities.


     Holocaust - the systematic state-sponsored murder of six million
     Jews by the Nazis and their collaborators.

Even with multiple groups of perpetrators, these definitions imply that
either there was no participation by Allied forces (such as the Soviets) in
the murder of Jews, or that any such murder does not qualify as part of the

A subset of Holocaust definitions includes reference to the Old Testament,
which some feel is a way of implying that all Christians (that is, non-Jews)
are somehow guilty of the Holocaust:

     Holocaust, an Old Testament sacrificial term, is used by
     historians to describe the massacre of 6 million Jews by the
     German Nazi regime during World War II.

Those who do not use a Septuagint Bible will search in vain for "holocaust,"
however, as "holocaust" is not used in the King James or other popular

To put a finer point on it, a definition can combine Jewish exclusivity as
victims, a multiplicity of perpetrators, and a Nazi policy of genocide.

     The "Holocaust" was: The systematic, bureaucratic annihilation of
     six million Jews by the Nazi regime and their collaborators as a
     central act of state during World War II.

Those anti-revisionists who acknowledge the lack of Nazi documents ordering
the genocide of the Jews are referred to as "functionalists," that is, they
believe that the annihilation began at the local level and developed
spontaneously and organically, as opposed to the "intentionalists," who
believe that Adolf Hitler (or a member of his high command) gave an actual
order to exterminate the Jews. Presumably, no "functionalist"
anti-revisionist would find the above definition satisfactory.

Extermination of Jews and non-Jews

Some definitions include a number of non-Jews:

     the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, D.C.,
     summons all who enter its portals to rise to an important and
     extraordinary challenge: to remember and immortalize the 6 million
     Jews and millions of other Nazi victims of World War II - Gypsies,
     Poles, homosexuals, the handicapped, Jehovah's Witnesses,
     political and religious dissidents, Soviet prisoners of war - who
     were murdered in the most horrifying event of our time: the


     the Holocaust - the systematic, state-sponsored mass murders by
     Nazi Germany of 6,000,000 Jews, alongside millions of others, in
     the name of a perverse racial theory


     ho.lo.caust n 3 a often cap: the mass slaughter of European
     civilians and esp. Jews by the Nazis during World War II - usu.
     used with the


     These crimes, however, pale in comparison to the massive,
     deliberate, and well-planned extermination of more than 15 million
     persons in what is termed the Holocaust. This genocide of
     staggering proportions was carried out with scrupulous efficiency
     by a well-coordinated German bureaucracy in which nothing was left
     to chance.

     The primary goal of the Nazi Holocaust was the extermination of
     all the Jews in Europe. This purpose was nearly fulfilled. Out of
     an estimated 8.3 million Jews living in German-occupied Europe
     after 1939, about 6 million were killed.

     Holocaust as a term has normally been used to describe the fate of
     Europe's Jews.

The inclusion of non-Jewish victims in definitions of the Holocaust seem to
be politically motivated. The second definition shown above may be
considered the official US government definition of "Holocaust." More
interesting than the fact that the US government would have such a
definition, is the implication that had there not been non-Jewish victims,
the deaths of six million Jews would not have constituted a "Holocaust."

Mistreatment and extermination

All the definitions shown above suffered in one way or another from a lack
of scope. The Encyclopedia Britannica dates the start of the Holocaust from
the Nazi accession to power, but includes persecution as well as

     Hebrew SHO'AH, or HURBAN, the 12 years (1933-45) of Nazi
     persecution of Jews and other minorities, which was marked by
     increasing barbarization of methods in the expanding territories
     under German rule; it climaxed in the "final solution" (die
     Endlšsung), the attempted extermination of European Jewry.

Revisionists believe that the "final solution" is only incidentally related
to the Holocaust, and did not involve extermination, but nevertheless this
definition comes closer to being usable for academic purposes than the
others surveyed so far.

Value of imprecision

The amorphous nature of the term "Holocaust" is convenient to the extent
that it implies an inconceivable sequence and combination of events, leaving
the specifics to the imagination. This has proved convenient on more than
one occasion, when a portion of the received knowledge of the Holocaust has
had to be jettisoned or altered: because there is no fixed definition, the
word can still be made to conjure up just as much horror as it did before
the adjustment.

The dichotomy between the public conception of the "Holocaust" and the facts
surrounding the period known by scholars leads to "Holocaust" meaning
something different to just about everyone. Because of the imprecision of
its definition, the word "Holocaust" is often simultaneously all-inclusive
and extremely exclusive. Therefore, by questioning the gas chambers one
becomes a "Holocaust denier," even though only in sensationalized media
accounts is the "Holocaust" defined as only the gassing of the Jews.

Revisionists are often victims of the imprecise definition of "Holocaust."
No matter how much of the Holocaust story is acknowledged by a revisionist,
the definition of "Holocaust" is so plastic that the "denier" label can
still be applied by opponents more interested in ideology than in historical
discussion. Conversely, anti-revisionists are allowed the freedom to alter
or discount specific portions of the Holocaust story without being labelled
as "deniers" as long as they are perceived as accepting the Holocaust as a
unique and horrific crime against Jews and the Jewish people.

Lack of precision in defining "Holocaust" is not, of course, part of a
conspiracy to make it possible to attack revisionists. Rather, it arises
>from  the fact that there is little if any agreement among those who most use
the term, as to what they mean. Add to this the convenience of having a term
that can be inflated to make a socio-political weapon of whatever size is
necessary, determined only by the volume of hot air that one is willing to
inject. Not surprizingly, anti-revisionists virtually never complain when
attempts are made to over-inflate the Holocaust.

Before historians can discuss events and implications of the Holocaust,
there first must be an understanding about what they mean when they use the
word. Such an understanding would not be a straitjacket that stifles debate,
but rather one that encourages discussion due to the creation of what
semanticists call an "extensional bargain" - that is, where all participants
to the discussion agree on the basic terminology of the subject being
discussed. With such an understanding (or definition) in place, there could
be no Holocaust "denial" among participants in the discussion, and labelling
revisionists as "deniers" then clearly would be an act of bad faith.

The revisionist viewpoint

There is no question but that many people suffered during the Second World
War, and that some of those who suffered were Jews. Some Jews suffered for
no other reason than they were Jews. While it may seem improper to single
out the Jewish experience during this horrible time with a special title,
there is much to be gained by examining the Jewish role in historical
events, so by giving a special name to the Jewish wartime experience we may
more quickly come to an understanding of the period. In other historical
events, such as the Russian revolution and the Spanish Inquisition, in which
Jews played large roles, emphasis is often shifted away from the role of
Jews because the title given the event does not hint at the Judeo-centric
nature of the event. By using the term "Holocaust" to define a Judeo-centric
viewpoint of one aspect of the Second World War, it is possible to eliminate
some of this shift.

The list of what happened to the Jews must not be restricted to
"extermination." Although many Jews died, our sympathies and our study must
include those who were uprooted, driven out, forced into labor or
concentration camps, and otherwise mistreated. This would also include those
who lost their possessions, but not those who left by choice, or who died of
old age or other natural causes, as they would have whether or not the Nazis
had come into power, or if peace had prevailed instead of war. Perhaps most
importantly, the Holocaust should not count among its victims those Jews who
died as combantants, even as a result of resistance activities.

The period covered by the term "Holocaust" cannot start in 1933, with the
Nazi rise to power, because while some Jewish groups vigorously opposed the
Nazi party, and are not free of guilt in antagonizing the Nazis, other
Jewish groups collaborated with the Nazis between 1933 and the outbreak of
war in 1939, a strong argument against those who claim that the Nazis hated
Jews as Jews. After the outbreak of war, however, Jews were classified by
the German government as enemy aliens, as which point they were subject to
different treatment until the end of the war in 1945.

One of the most often overlooked (or suppressed) aspects of the Holocaust is
where it took place. The bulk of the Jews said to have been involved in the
Holocaust were not from Germany, but rather from neighboring countries such
as Poland. However, it is inaccurate to restrict the geographic scope of the
Holocaust to Germany and German-occupied lands. Walter Sanning and others
have proposed that millions of Jews included in traditional Holocaust
calculations actually disappeared into the Soviet Union. The Soviet
scorched-earth policies may very well have resulted in hundreds of thousands
or millions of Jews being forcibly resettled to Siberia and other regions
within the Soviet Union. The fate of these Jews is no less tragic because
the perpetrators were not Nazis. On the other hand, reprisals exacted on
Jews by indigenous populations in the Eastern territories for mistreatment -
real or imagined - at the hands of the Jews before the war, must not be
included in "Holocaust," as to do so would irreparably blur the line between
state-sponsored and local, spontaneous actions.

Finally, the door must be left open to consider the role of Jewish and
Zionist leaders. Whether or not they were well-intentioned, actions by the
Judenrat, Jewish kapos, and pro-Nazi Zionists that resulted in Jewish deaths
must be studied and criticized, just as actions by these groups and others
are praised when they resulted in the saving of Jewish lives.

Left undefined, but to be determined by examining the facts within the
framework above, is the "why" of the Holocaust.

A proposed definition

According to the OED, revision is, "The action of revising or looking over
again; esp. critical or careful examination or perusal with a view to
correcting or improving." Revisionism is defined as, "A term used for a
revised attitude to some previously accepted political situation, doctrine,
or point of view." A revisionist, then, would be someone who approaches the
Holocaust by looking at the facts, putting them in context, and arriving at
the "why." An anti-revisionist would be someone who has fixed ideas about
why the Holocaust happened, and then finds facts to support that conclusion,
usually at the expense of context.

Taking into account everything above, I would propose that the term
"Holocaust" be defined as: "The mistreatment of Jewish civilians, primarily
in Europe, at the hands of the combatants during the Second World War

Sidebar: 'Holocaust' or Shoah?

Although the current usage of the word "Holocaust" is due to the efforts of
Jewish writers and historians such as Elie Wiesel, not everyone is
comfortable associating what happened to the Jews during the Second World
War with Biblical stories of a firey sacrifice to God, for in at least one
sense this implies that the Jews should have accepted their fate at the
hands of the Nazis, as did Isaac when God commanded Isaac's father, Abraham,
to sacrifice his first-born son. Furthermore, for such a sacrifice to take
place with the Jews serving as the offering to be burnt, the Nazis must then
be thought of as priests, doing God's work.

The proof of God's satisfaction with the Holocaust would then be the
establishment of the state of Israel, a reward for millions of silent,
unresisting Jewish victims. This further implies that Jewish resistance was
impertinent at best, and an affront to God at worst. The logical extension
of this interpretation is, then, that the perpetrators of the Holocaust
(however defined) were in the right, while the Jews (perhaps uniquely among
the victims) were in the wrong, if the growing body of literature on Jewish
resistance is to be given any credibility.

Little wonder, then, that there is an effort among Jewish scholars to
instead use the word Shoah, which means destruction or ruin, with no
connotation of sacrifice.
For the current IHR catalog, with a complete listing of books and audio and
video tapes, send two dollars to:

Institute For Historical Review
Post Office Box 2739
Newport Beach, California 92659

Send all questions and comments to

Back to Main Menu


From Mon Nov 25 06:24:09 PST 1996
Article: 80804 of alt.revisionism
From: Greg Raven 
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Elie Wiesel
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 1996 23:19:17 -0800
Organization: Institute for Historical Review
Lines: 276
Message-ID: <>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02E (Macintosh; U; 68K)
Content-Disposition: inline; filename="wiesel.html"

A Prominent False Witness: Elie Wiesel

By Robert Faurisson

ELIE WIESEL won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1986. He is generally accepted as a
witness to the Jewish "Holocaust," and, more specifically, as a witness to
the legendary Nazi extermination gas chambers. The Paris daily Le Monde
emphasized at the time that Wiesel was awarded the Nobel Prize because:
(note 1)

     These last years have seen, in the name of so-called "historical
     revisionism," the elaboration of theses, especially in France,
     questioning the existence of the Nazi gas chambers and, perhaps
     beyond that, of the genocide of the Jews itself.

But in what respect is Elie Wiesel a witness to the alleged gas chambers? By
what right does he ask us to believe in that means of extermination? In an
autobiographical book that supposedly describes his experiences at Auschwitz
and Buchenwald, he nowhere mentions the gas chambers. (note 2) He does
indeed say that the Germans executed Jews, but ... by fire; by throwing them
alive into flaming ditches, before the very eyes of the deportees! No less
than that!

Here Wiesel the false witness had some bad luck. Forced to choose from among
several Allied war propaganda lies, he chose to defend the fire lie instead
of the boiling water, gassing, or electrocution lies. In 1956, when he
published his testimony in Yiddish, the fire lie was still alive in certain
circles. This lie is the origin of the term Holocaust. Today there is no
longer a single historian who believes that Jews were burned alive. The
myths of the boiling water and of electrocution have also disappeared. Only
the gas remains.

The gassing lie was spread by the Americans. (note 3) The lie that Jews were
killed by boiling water or steam (specifically at Treblinka) was spread by
the Poles. (note 4) The electrocution lie was spread by the Soviets.n (note

The fire lie is of undetermined origin. It is in a sense as old as war
propaganda or hate propaganda. In his memoir, Night, which is a version of
his earlier Yiddish testimony, Wiesel reports that at Auschwitz there was
one flaming ditch for the adults and another one for babies. He writes:
(note 6)

     Not far from us, flames were leaping from a ditch, gigantic
     flames. They were burning something. A lorry drew up at the pit
     and delivered its load -- little children. Babies! Yes, I saw it
     -- saw it with my own eyes ... Those children in the flames. (Is
     it surprising that I could not sleep after that? Sleep has fled
     from my eyes.)

A little farther on there was another ditch with gigantic flames where the
victims suffered "slow agony in the flames." Wiesel's column was led by the
Germans to within "three steps" of the ditch, then to "two steps." "Two
steps from the pit we were ordered to turn to the left and made to go into a

An exceptional witness himself, Wiesel assures us of his having met other
exceptional witnesses. Regarding Babi Yar, a place in Ukraine where the
Germans executed Soviet citizens, among them Jews, Wiesel wrote: (note 7)

     Later, I learn from a witness that, for month after month, the
     ground never stopped trembling; and that, from time to time,
     geysers of blood spurted from it.

These words did not slip from their author in a moment of frenzy: first, he
wrote them, then some unspecified number of times (but at least once) he had
to reread them in the proofs; finally, his words were translated into
various languages, as is everything this author writes.

That Wiesel personally survived, was, of course, the result of a miracle. He
says that: (note 8)

     In Buchenwald they sent 10,000 persons to their deaths each day. I
     was always in the last hundred near the gate. They stopped. Why?

In 1954 French scholar Germaine Tillion analyzed the "gratuitous lie" with
regard to the German concentration camps. She wrote: (note 9)

     Those persons [who gratuitously lie] are, to tell the truth, much
     more numerous than people generally suppose, and a subject like
     that of the concentration camp world -- well designed, alas, to
     stimulate sado-masochistic imaginings -- offered them an
     exceptional field of action. We have known numerous mentally
     damaged persons, half swindlers and half fools, who exploited an
     imaginary deportation; we have known others of them -- authentic
     deportees -- whose sick minds strove to go even beyond the
     monstrosities that they had seen or that people said had happened
     to them. There have been publishers to print some of their
     imaginings, and more or less official compilations to use them,
     but publishers and compilers are absolutely inexcusable, since the
     most elementary inquiry would have been enough to reveal the

Tillion lacked the courage to give examples and names. But that is usually
the case. People agree that there are false gas chambers that tourists and
pilgrims are encouraged to visit, but they do not tell us where. They agree
that there are false "eyewitnesses," but in general they name only Martin
Gray, the well-known swindler, at whose request Max Gallo, with full
knowledge of what he was doing, fabricated the bestseller For Those I Loved.

Jean-Franois Steiner is sometimes named as well. His bestselling novel
Treblinka (1966) was presented as a work of which the accuracy of every
detail was guaranteed by oral or written testimony. In reality it was a
fabrication attributable, at least in part, to the novelist Gilles Perrault.
(note 10) Marek Halter, for his part, published his La MŽmoire d'Abraham in
1983; as he often does on radio, he talked there about his experiences in
the Warsaw ghetto. However, if we are to believe an article by Nicolas Beau
that is quite favorable to Halter, (note 11) little Marek, about three years
old, and his mother left Warsaw not in 1941 but in October of 1939, before
the establishment of the ghetto there by the Germans. Halter's book is
supposed to have been actually written by a ghost writer, Jean-No‘l Gurgan.

Filip MŸller is the author of Eyewitness Auschwitz: Three Years in the Gas
Chambers, (note 12) which won the 1980 prize of the International League
against Racism and Anti-Semitism (LICRA). This nauseous best-seller is
actually the work of a German ghost writer, Helmut Freitag, who did not
hesitate to engage in plagiarism. (note 13) The source of the plagiarism is
Auschwitz: A Doctor's Eyewitness Account, another best-seller made up out of
whole cloth and attributed to Miklos Nyiszli. (note 14)

Thus a whole series of works presented as authentic documents turns out to
be merely compilations attributable to various ghost writers: Max Gallo,
Gilles Perrault, Jean-No‘l Gurgan (?), and Helmut Freitag, among others.

We would like to know what Germaine Tillion thinks about Elie Wiesel today.
With him the lie is certainly not gratuitous. Wiesel claims to be full of
love for humanity. However, he does not refrain from an appeal to hatred. In
his opinion: (note 15)

     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. To do otherwise would be a betrayal
     of the dead.

At the beginning of 1986, 83 deputies of the German Bundestag took the
initiative of proposing Wiesel for the Nobel Peace Prize. This would be,
they said, "a great encouragement to all who are active in the process of
reconciliation." (note 16) That is what might be called "going from National
Socialism to national masochism."

Jimmy Carter needed a historian to preside over the President's Commission
on the Holocaust. As Dr. Arthur Butz said so well, he chose not a historian
but a "histrion": Elie Wiesel. Even the newspaper Le Monde, in the article
mentioned above, was obliged to refer to the histrionic trait that certain
persons deplore in Wiesel:

     Naturally, even among those who approve of the struggle of this
     American Jewish writer, who was discovered by the Catholic
     Franois Mauriac, some reproach him for having too much of a
     tendency to change the Jewish sadness into "morbidity" or to
     become the high priest of a "planned management of the Holocaust."

As Jewish writer Leon A. Jick has written: "The devastating barb, 'There is
no business like SHOAH-business' is, sad to say, a recognizable truth."
(note 17)

Elie Wiesel issues alarmed and inflammatory appeals against Revisionist
authors. He senses that things are getting out of hand. It is going to
become more and more difficult for him to maintain the mad belief that the
Jews were exterminated or were subjected to a policy of extermination,
especially in so-called gas chambers. Serge Klarsfeld has admitted that real
proofs of the existence of the gas chambers have still not yet been
published. He promises proofs. (note 18)

On the scholarly plane, the gas chamber myth is finished. To tell the truth,
that myth breathed its last breath several years ago at the Sorbonne
colloquium in Paris (June 29-July 2, 1982), at which Raymond Aron and
Franois Furet presided. What remains is to make this news known to the
general public. However, for Elie Wiesel it is of the highest importance to
conceal that news. Thus all the fuss in the media, which is going to
increase: the more the journalists talk, the more the historians keep quiet.

But there are historians who dare to raise their voices against the lies and
the hatred. That is the case with Michel de BoŸard, wartime member of the
Resistance, deportee to Mauthausen, member of the Committee for the History
of the Second World War from 1945 to 1981, and a member of the Institut de
France. In a poignant interview in 1986, he courageously acknowledged that
in 1954 he had vouched for the existence of a gas chamber at Mauthausen
where, it finally turns out, there never was one. (note 19)

The respect owed to the sufferings of all the victims of the Second World
War, and, in particular, to the sufferings of the deportees, demands on the
part of historians a return to the proven and time-honored methods of
historical criticism.


  1. October 17, 1986. Front page.
  2. There is one single allusion, extremely vague and fleeting, on pages
     78-79: Wiesel, who very much likes to have conversations with God, says
     to Him: "But these men here, whom You have betrayed, whom You have
     allowed to be tortured, butchered, gassed, burned, what do they do?
     They pray before you!" (Night, New York, Discus/Avon Books, 1969, p.
     79). In his preface to that same book, Franois Mauriac mentioned "the
     gas chamber and the crematory" (p. 8). The four crucial pages of
     "testimony" by Elie Wiesel are reproduced in facsimile in: Pierre
     Guillaume, Droit et Histoire (La Vieille Taupe, 1986), pp. 147-150. In
     the German-language edition of Night (Die Nacht zu begraben, Elischa
     [Ullstein, 1962]), on 14 occasions the word "crematory" or
     "crematories" has been falsely given as "Gaskammer" ("gas chamber[s]").
     In January of 1945, in anticipation of a Russian takeover, the Germans
     were evacuating Auschwitz. Elie Wiesel, a young teenager at the time,
     was hospitalized in Birkenau (the "extermination camp") after surgery
     on an infected foot. His doctor had recommended two weeks of rest and
     good food but, before his foot healed, the Russian takeover became
     imminent. Hospital patients were considered unfit for the long trip to
     the camps in Germany and Elie thus could have remained at Birkenau to
     await the Russians. Although his father had permission to stay with him
     as a hospital patient or orderly, father and son talked it over and
     decided to move out with the Germans. (See Night, p. 93. See also D.
     Calder, The Sunday Sun [Toronto, Canada], May 31, 1987, p. C4.)
  3. See the US War Refugee Board Report, German Extermination Camps:
     Auschwitz and Birkenau (Washington, DC), November 1944.
  4. See Nuremberg document PS-3311 (USA-293). Published in the IMT "blue
     series," Vol. 32, pp. 153-158.
  5. See the report in Pravda, Feb. 2, 1945, p. 4, and the UP report in the
     Washington (DC) Daily News, Feb. 2, 1945, p. 2.
  6. Night (Avon/Discus). See esp. pp. 41, 42, 43, 44, 79, 93.
  7. Paroles d'Žtranger (Editions du Seuil, 1982), p. 86.
  8. "Author, Teacher, Witness," Time magazine, March 18, 1985, p. 79.
  9. "Le Systme concentrationnaire allemand [1940-1944]," Revue d'histoire
     de la Deuxime Guerre mondiale, July 1954, p. 18, n. 2.
 10. Le Journal du Dimanche, March 30, 1985, p. 5.
 11. LibŽration, Jan. 24, 1986, p. 19.
 12. Published by Stein and Day (New York). Paperback edition of 1984. (xii
     + 180 pages.) With a foreword by Yehuda Bauer of the Institute of
     Contemporary Jewry, Hebrew University, Jerusalem.
 13. Carlo Mattogno, Auschwitz: un caso di plagio, Parma (Italy): 1986. See
     also: C. Mattogno, "Auschwitz: A Case of Plagiarism," The Journal of
     Historical Review, Spring 1990, pp. 5-24.
 14. Paperback edition, 1961, and later, published by Fawcett Crest (New
 15. Legends of Our Time (chapter 12: "Appointment with Hate"), New York:
     Schocken Books, 1982, p. 142, or, New York: Avon, 1968, pp. 177-178.
 16. The Week in Germany (published in New York by the German government in
     Bonn), Jan. 31, 1986, p. 2.
 17. "The Holocaust: Its Use and Abuse Within the American Public," Yad
     Vashem Studies (Jerusalem), 1981, p. 316.
 18. VSD, May 29, 1986, p. 37.
 19. Ouest-France, August 2-3, 1986, p. 6.


Elie Wiesel passes for one of the most celebrated eyewitnesses to the
alleged Holocaust. Yet in his supposedly autobiographical book Night, he
makes no mention of gas chambers. He claims instead to have witnessed Jews
being burned alive, a story now dismissed by all historians. Wiesel gives
credence to the most absurd stories of other "eyewitnesses." He spreads
fantastic tales of 10,000 persons sent to their deaths each day in

When Elie Wiesel and his father, as Auschwitz prisoners, had the choice of
either leaving with their retreating German "executioners," or remaining
behind in the camp to await the Soviet "liberators," the two decided to
leave with their German captors.

It is time, in the name of truth and out of respect for the genuine
sufferings of the victims of the Second World War, that historians return to
the proven methods of historical criticism, and that the testimony of the
Holocaust "eyewitnesses" be subjected to rigorous scrutiny rather than
unquestioning acceptance.

Edition of: 10/93

For the current IHR catalog, with a complete listing of books and audio and
video tapes, send two dollars to:

Institute For Historical Review
Post Office Box 2739
Newport Beach, California 92659

Send all questions and comments to

Back to Main Menu

Home ·  Site Map ·  What's New? ·  Search Nizkor

© The Nizkor Project, 1991-2012

This site is intended for educational purposes to teach about the Holocaust and to combat hatred. Any statements or excerpts found on this site are for educational purposes only.

As part of these educational purposes, Nizkor may include on this website materials, such as excerpts from the writings of racists and antisemites. Far from approving these writings, Nizkor condemns them and provides them so that its readers can learn the nature and extent of hate and antisemitic discourse. Nizkor urges the readers of these pages to condemn racist and hate speech in all of its forms and manifestations.