Talk:Holocaust denial/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 5

Random Title For the Purpose of Moving the Table of Contents to the Top of the Page

User Talk:IP

I thought an alphabetical order is even more objective.

User talk: From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Please study our Neutral point of view policy. RickK 02:08, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

You are the ones that need to study the NPOV policy. This article is strictly Jewish and Kosher POV lying and hypocritical WWII propaganda. No one is a "Holocaust denier"? Historical revisionists are NOT Holocaust deniers.

Please stop your anti-Semitic attacks. RK

Where holocaust denial is published

Is it fair to single out the Middle East for publishing works? Quite a lot of stuff being done is European and North American - David Irving, for example, and Zundel or whatever the name is. I think this needs to be said for NPOV. -- April

While I agree with this sentiment in principal, it seems that the material being published in the Americas and Europe is still relegated to a fringe element, while books and pamphlets published in the Middle East have a semi-official status in some of these countries and are used within the context of the larger dispute between Israel and many of the Arab states. Nevertheless, I agree that Ernst Zundel and others like him should be mentioned. Danny

Saudi Arabis puts a copy in hotel rooms

The article states: " Saudi Arabia used to put a copy of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion in each hotel room. The Protocols are not used or taken seriously by Holocaust Revisionists." If they're not used by Holocaust revisionists, then what's the point of even mentioning it here?

The point is that Holocaust Revisionism is different from Arab anti-Semitism. --Clutch 14:06 Oct 28, 2002 (UTC)

Facts that holocaust deniers try to remove

This paragraph is a recounting of historical fact: "Due to the extremely rapid collapse of the Nazi forces at the end of the war, attempts to destroy evidence were for the most part unsuccessful. After their defeat, many tons of documents were recovered, and many thousands of bodies were found not yet completely decomposed, in mass graves near many concentration camps. The physical evidence and the documentary proof included records of train shipments of Jews to the camps, orders for tons of cyanide and other poisons, and the remaining concentration camp structures. Interviews with survivors completed the picture. Therefore, these revisionist views are rejected by virtually all serious historians of the period. "

First of all, it is not a statement of opinion, it is something that actually happened. Bodies were found, documents were uncovered, survivors told their stories. Edward R. Murrow gave a radio account that was famous in itself when he said, "Murder was done at Buchenwald." It is also a fact that revisionist views are almost universally rejected.

I will repeat this: It is not an opinion, it is a fact. It is also something that Holocaust revisionists have repeatedly tried to deny, disprove (with no success), and discount. In fact, the historical evidence is so strong that the revisionists have proactically given up trying to argue against it. This very article on Holocaust revisionism includes two major instances where, instead of trying to disprove historical evidence, the revisionists have reverted to libel, slander, and abuse of the legal system to attack their perceived enemies -- the alt.revisionism newsgroup affair and the Lipstadt lawsuit.

The evidence debunking Holocaust revisionism is important and relevant, because it shows that Holocaust revisionism is made up of little more than lies and conspiracy theories. It is therefore necessary, if not essential, in this encyclopedia entry. And this is furthermore used to support the article with this statement: Therefore, these revisionist views are rejected by virtually all serious historians of the period. -- Modemac

The facts that you present are excellent material for debunking the Holocaust Deniers. However those particular facts don't get at the heart of the revisionist argument at all. They are great at SOUNDING like they debunk the revisionists, but they don't. Come on, I know you can do a better job of debunking than that. The facts you present as debunking the revisionists are in fact items that the revisionists themselves do not deny or take issue with. When you just wave your hands around instead of presenting real debunking evidence, you just lend credibility to what the revisionists say. I can't let you lend them that credibility. --Clutch
Rather than taking this personally, Clutch, perhaps you can show us what a "better job of debunking"; is supposed to be. Quite frankly, there is no better way to debunk a bad argument (such as Holocaust revisionism) than by using the truth. This is hardly lending credibility to revisionism; indeed, it shows revisionism to be little more than lies and propaganda (as I have already said). Oh, and how about stating your opinion here on talk before wiping out things you don't agree with, instead of after? - -- Modemac
I don't know what the best approach is to debunk the revisionists, except on a point by point basis. But I don't like seeing a debunking being done wrong, and lowering the tone of the Wikipedia. I could be at a party and say afterward "Fred wore a green lampshade". The facts you presented are equivalent to a debunker coming along and saying "There were a hundred people at that party, and they drank all the punch, therefore what you say happened is wrong!" --Clutch
By the way, kudos go to for trying to present a balanced view of the matter. -- Modemac
I have added a framework for point-by-point debunking, which is important here. We know these claims are nonsense, but this does not mean we need not present an argument against them.
This entire entry is a joke, no? At least you are honest that your goal is to "debunk" the revisionists, but can someone explain to me how trying to "debunk" what you are explaining satisfies the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view principle? This entry is nothing but one-sided, ignorant propaganda and as such is a disgrace to intellectualism and those who truly care about the truth or knowledge (for example, someone coming to read this entry to find out what in fact Holocaust revisionism is, will be completely misled and otherwise thoroughly disappointed). If this entry were to have any non-propaganda (i.e., truth value), then it would try to *explain* Holocaust revisionism, not *debunk* it. After all, just to pick one example, the entry for Wikipedia:Virgin Birth does not try to disprove a virgin birth, but rather simply sets forth the doctrine, without "debunking" it. Why is such (properly) neutral treatment not afforded here? -- Sage

I would say it should be the other way round: virgin birth should include facts about the likelihood of such an event. -- Tarquin 18:03, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Do not remove comments

"20:54 Nov 7, 2002 . . Clutch (reply to Modemac, and removing unattributed comment)" -- Clutch, Wikipedia does not have any bias against anonymous contributions or comments, especially on Talk pages. However, it is considered very rude to "remove"/delete others' comments from Talk pages, even when they are anonymous. Please don't do this.

I have a bias against it. When people stick in comments without attribution, they all get jumbled together, and I can't make out the narrative flow, or even tell when "voices" change; I can't tell whether it was one person that wrote two consecutive paragraphs, or two different people. This has an impact on how I reply to them. I'm sure others share this bias, or there wouldn't be so many people who DO politely attribute their comments. If you are going to reinsert unattributed comments, please at least be kind enough to add in their proper attribution while you are at it. --Clutch
You mean the way "" did when he/she repeatedly deleted the contributions everyone else was putting into the Jehovah's Witnesses article? -- Modemac

Clutch, I often agree with your reasons. However, the Wikipedia community as a whole permits anonymity. Personally, I think it's very important to respond to ideas on their own merits, rather than to who is stating them. Unless Wikipedia as a whole changes the standard for anonymous posting, many people (including me), will continue to be "anonymous". But again, please don't delete comments on Talk, even when anonymous. Thanks.

Yeah, Clutch, not for nothin' but it's not about you! No one cares what you think or I think. We are trying to make an encyclopedia here, and if you want to help: all is well and good. Same goes for RK. --Ed Poor

What is the function of Holocaust denial in anti-Semitism?

I know we want to be NPOV here, but Holocaust denial is such a peculiar thing, "the belief that Germany did not kill millions of Jews, but certainly should have for making up a lie that Germany killed millions of Jews". I state the position crudely because I have never been able to understand what is the sense or function of Holocaust denial in the overall anti-Semitic scheme of things. Ortolan88 08:37 Jul 29, 2002 (PDT)

It's hard to understand the reasons associated with hatred. I suppose hatred is, at bottom, completely irrational. But Jews seem to have attracted a lot of hatred. This hatred has taken the form of discrimination, segragation and genocide. Often people feel a need to justify their attitudes or actions. So, after doing something "bad" we either say it was really "good" or deny having done it at all.

  • He hit me first.
  • We were just playing
  • I was only kidding.
  • Fight? What fight?

As for as making restitution for past misdeeds, if the deed never occurred, how can I be required to make restitution? If Jews weren't nearly wiped out in Europe, why should anyone requite that injustice by giving the more fertile land in Palestine?

I know this is awfully simplistic, but I daresay much of the rhetoric about these issues aren't entirely rationally based. Ed Poor

Oh God. This is the sort of article I dread. I agree with its premise, that Holocaust denial people are a bunch of neo-fascist apologists and nutters. But how do you write an NPOV article on this rubbish? Certainly this isn't it. Facts should convince people, not rhetoric and this article is too POV to be of any use in undermining the 'deny the holocaust' industry. It has all the subtlety of a 'brick through the window', overplays terms (kill, murder, genocide - yet they all happened, but if you lay it on this thick, readers are going to dismiss the article as biased and so worthless.) and throws up all sorts of irrelevances; when it comes to the holocaust, petty flame wars on net talks are irrelevent. It needs pruning, rewriting and toning down. When toned down, it stands a far better of chance of actually convincing people about just how loopy holocaust deniers really are. STÓD/ÉÍRE 04:32 Apr 9, 2003 (UTC)

Dude! If that is your POV going in, then you are just as screwed up, except you want to try and inject bias "covertly". Wikipedia is not about pushing the establishment media view. It's also not about pushing the anti-establishment view. It's about unbiased, neutral facts. This article as it is written is full of subtle little jibes at the holocaust deniers (and holocaust revisionists - two seperate things by the way which should have seperate pages). It should just lay things out factually - the beliefs of holocaust deniers, the main evidence they have come up with, notable people in the movement, and possibly at the end, the controversies and resistance they have encountered. That's how any other Wikipedia subject would be covered. - Sept. 27, 2004

Removed the following

With the advent of the Internet in the 1990s and early 21st century, a small number of Holocaust deniers found a worldwide audience for their writings. Certain supporters of Holocaust denial made names for themselves by repeatedly (critics say "endlessly") re-posting their writings over and over in many Usenet newsgroups, sparking vicious flame wars. These online arguments appeared to be eternal and unending, because the supporters of Holocaust denial refused to particiate in logical discussions and repeatedly stated that the Holocaust was a hoax, refusing to admit the existence of the considerable evidence disproving their statements. In the end, the holocaust denial faction was largely ignored and killfiled online.

  1. Internet rows are irrelevent to this article, certainly when written like this. If it should be covered, it needs to be NPOVed.
  1. When it comes to the issue of holocaust denial, flame wars are about as irrelevant to the serious issue of the article as it can be. So what if there are flame wars? There are flame wars on just about everything on the net, from the war in Iraq to Kylie Minogue's bum size. Bringing in flame wars to an article like this trivialises the top (though the person who added in this no doubt never meant to)
  1. the last line is POV. That doesn't mean it isn't right, but NPOV means showing the evidence and letting the reader see for themselves, not have the author state something as gospel.
  1. 'critics say endlessly' - another POV piece that simply undermines the NPOV the article should have.

This paragraph throws up largely irrelevant information in an emotive form and a clear POV that undermines whatever chance the article has of undermining the nutters who deny the holocaust. Show the evidence, don't state things as fact. STÓD/ÉÍRE 04:43 Apr 9, 2003 (UTC)

Revisionists claim that their claims cannot easily be disproved

The revisionists claim that their assertions cannot be as easily refuted. Most historians disagree with them, saying that the evidence clearly disproves their assertions.

Well, yeah. The first sentence says "holocaust revisionists believe in the claims they are making. The second sentence says "most historians don't", which is already covered in another paragraph. DanKeshet

[revisionism is] not supported by any officially approved, tenured, or government funded historians.

What's an "officially approved historian" when she's at home? Martin

Holocaust revisionism is Holocaust denial

There is a major problem with this article. Someone wrote a paragraph, and has substantially misunderstood the very topic. The article currently states that "Holocaust revisionism is distinct from Holocaust denial, the assertion that the Holocaust never happened at all. Holocaust revisionists see themselves as part of a tradition of historical revisionism - the reexamination of widely-accepted historical theories."

No, this is totally wrong. The author is confused by what the term "revisionism" means. In normal use, "revisionism" refers to a very normal and well-accepted part of historical scholarship. It is the revisiting of old topics to look at them in a new light. In this sense of the word, all mainstream historians, and all Jewish groups, totally approve of new research on the Holocaust; some of this can fairly be called "historical revisionism concerning the Holocaust." The problem is that anti-Semitic Holocaust deniers have been trying to appropriate this term for themselves. They refer to all of their Holocaust denial as "historical revisionism". What this article currently is in gross error on is the fact that all mainstream historians agree that these so-called "historical revisionists" are not practicing legitimate historical revisionism at all, but are rather using false advertising to promote Holocaust denial. The good news is that our article on historical revisionism already makes this distinction. We just need to make this same distinction here, and then merge the pages on holocaust revisionism and holocaust denial. RK 19:31, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I suggest the material on "Holocaust revisionism" be reverted back to the "revisionism" page, because the term "holocaust revisionism" is more prevalent and widely used than "holocaust denial." The latter may be more accurate, but "revisionism" is the term most often looked for when people do research into this subject. --Modemac 00:11, 24 Aug 2003 (UTC)

A Google web search showed me that "Holocaust denial" shows up 26,400 times, while "Holocaust revisionism" only shows up 5,200 times. This ratio is also about the same when doing a Google newsgroup search for these terms. RK

This is part of a larger phenomenon

Not wanting to be too controversial, Holocaust denial is part of a much larger phenomenon of "denial of genocide" that can be discerned nearly every time an act definable as genocide occurs. For instance, the Armenian genocide, the massacre of Native Americans, and the Porajmos all have detractors in certain circles. Deborah Lipstadt has written on the general topic and found certain common features of all denials of genocide. Personally, I think it would be a fascinating article and would like to write it, but I can see how some people might be upset by it. Is there anyone who would resent such an article. If so, please give your grounds so that they can be discussed. If not, I intend to start working on it over the weekend. Danny 00:29, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Sounds interesting. But be careful about bringing in the issue of Native American Indians. The vast majority of them died out from contact with European germs long before most Europeans got greedy about taking their land. The few cases of provable genocide were very small scale (which doesn't make them any less heinous) and these took place over a century after most Native Americans had already died. At the time that most Native Americans were dying from European diseases, the vast majority of North America was totally unknown to Europeans. They didn't even know about the existence of most Native American villages that were wiped out! European germs travelled far beyond the footsteps of any European explorer. Also, there was no plan by any european nation for the extermination of the Native Americans; we now know that none of them even had the faintest idea of how many millions of American Indians there were. Of course, there was a nationwide policy by the USA against Indians that included theft, occupation, attacks, massacres, etc., and those government sanctioned actions certainly were done on purpose. (BTW, I am not at all opposed to describing the known instances of germ warfare against Indians. But those come from a much later time, after the American Indians were already over 90% gone.) RK 00:38, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Negationism is junk, but it purports to be on that topic. Martin 00:48, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Suggested readings on this new topic

The "Unique" Intentionality of the Holocaust, in Post-Holocaust Dialogues, Steven T. Katz, New York University Press, 1983
Quantity and Interpretation - Issues in the Comparative Historical Analysis of the Holocaust, in Historicism, The Holocaust and Zionism, Steven T. Katz, New York University Press, 1992

Some responses:

RK: There were plans by the Americans themselves to eradicate complete peoples. As for European nations, Bartolomeo de las Casas gives a chilling contemporary account at the time of Spanish conquest. And genocide, no matter the scale, remains genocide, even if only 10 percent are left. Deloria and Stannard both provide detailed accounts of genocide against Native American peoples (they are not a homogeneous group), but these are generally glossed over in American textbooks, if not entirely ignored.

True, but I am stressing a finer point: European Americans did not plan to eradicate the original Native Americans Indians of North America. It was just impossible, as the vast majority of them were already dead long before the United States ever existed. (This fact wasn't known until the 1970s, but it is well established now.) No nation, European, let alone the USA, attempted genocide on the combined Native American Indian tribes. However, as I said before, the USA did engage in horrible policies against the remaining Native Americans, but this was over a century, in some cases two centuries, after most Native Americans were dead. Also, I agree with you that the Europeans did horrible things and killed many, many Native Americans. It certainly belongs in the topic being discussed here. Further, I certainly have never imagined that the Native Americans were homogenous. Finally, I also agree with you that most American high school history textbooks shamefully gloss over this subject. I think we are in agreement on these issues. I just want to avoid the common historical anachronism. RK 01:06, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Martin: I do not understand your comment.

Meanwhile, Turkish denial of genocide resulted in the refusal in Hollywood to film Werfel's Musa Dagh. President Tudjeman of Croatia wrote books denying Croat complicity in the massacre of Serbs. The question is, then, why are people so hesitant to accept genocide as a historical phenomenon? Are there common features in each instance, beside a need to defend one's own nation against charges of a horrific crime? It can be a fascinating, if also a disturbing topic. Danny 01:02, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)

The Negationism article purports to be on "the denial of historic crimes", including genocide. But, as far as I can tell, it's junk. However, if you write a decent article on genocide denial, you might want to redirect that article to it. Also, you might care to skim through it to check whether or not it is in fact junk, since I'm no expert. Martin 01:08, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Okay, Martin, I agree with you. RK, here is some information, and I am leaving out Central and South America for the moment:

  • 1607: Powhattan Confederation of contemporary Virginia exterminated by Jamestown settlers in a series of "total wars". Population reduced from and estimated 200,000 to just 3,000.
  • 1637: The Pequots of New England fell victim to a war of extermination, followed by the Wampanoags, Narrangansetts, Abenakis, Mohegans, and Niantics. Yes, these people were already decimated by disease, but in all instances, the wars were against the survivors.
  • 1641: Dutch governor Willem Kieft offers a bounty on any Indian scalp brought to him.
  • 1729: The Natchez nearly exterminated in a war against the British.
  • 1730: The Fox ... ditto.
  • 1763: 100,000 Ottawas died of smallpox, from intentionally infected blankets.

After the Revolution, the American Army maintained the British bounty system, supported by state governments (i.e., Texas) and private individuals (i.e., California). Bounty was awarded for proof of a dead Indian. 1836: 100,000 Mandans die of smallpox from intentionally infected blankets. I am intentionally leaving out the "little" massacres (Wounded Knee comes to mind, as do Bad Axe River and Sand Creek), and I am leaving out the Trail of Tears, with 50 percent fatalities for the Cherokee (the Chickasaws and Creeks faired slightly better with 25 and 35 percent respectively). I am also avoiding most of California, where the native population was decimated during the Gold Rush. The fact that many also died as a result of "unintentional infection" (and even that is questionable, given the cases of the Mandan and Ottawas) does not make these any less cases of genocide. The problem is that denial of genocide is pervasive. That is what I would like this new article to be about. (And notice that I have not mentioned the Jews once...) Danny 01:31, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)

All fine points worth discussing, especially since American high school history books gloss over this. I look forward to seeing an article on all this. RK 22:06, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)


Zündel established his own Web site to publicize his revisionist viewpoint. In response, the German government blocked off access his site for all German citizens.

This seems to be wrong. Access to the site is available in Germany. -- JeLuF 09:13 25 May 2003 (UTC)

Based on JeLuF's comment, I removed this sentence. Martin 11:08, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)

The Soviet policy of denial

Should this article also mention that the Soviet post-WWII policy was not to acknowledge the Shoah was directed against the Jews, as this word has been avoided until the mid-1980s. See the Black book, the Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee and related. Humus sapiens|Talk 02:49, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Allowing revisionists their say

The last revert to this article blew through a lot of text, which, while it could be considered vandalism, could also be starter text to allow more of an NPOV flavor, however disagreeable, and to at least be accurately stated points made by revisionists. Perhaps the author of the reverted text could help to expand the revisionist/denial belief section. Ronabop 05:45, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It's hardly NPOV to start blathering silly accusations about "Jews! Zionists! Jews! Zionists!" again and again and again in lieu of actual facts. Unfortunately, that's what about 2/3 of Holocaust revisionism consists of. That's also why refuting of Holocaust revisionism is NPOV - because it's the truth and it's backed up by facts and evidence. That's not a statement of personal opinion, it's just the truth. --Modemac 12:07, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Hm, I just went to a bunch of the revisionist sites, and found a very different flavor of what revisionism consists of. Rather than 'silly accusations about "Jews! Zionists!"'... 'in lieu of actual facts', I found tons and tons of facts. Sure, the facts presented have often been painfully contorted to fit a certain hypothesis, or painstakingly selective in nature, but revisionism seems to championship the use of facts as a bludgeon. Nizkor seems to handle this by pointing out what is wrong with the way certain facts are used, or handled, or in some cases, by agreeing with revisionists when they get it right. Then again, we don't need to turn a single wikipedia article into Nizkor. Ronabop 02:40, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I agree with Ronabop AND Modemac. True, if someone *really is* putting "Jews, Zionists, blah blah" then it isn't much good to anyone. However, I haven't seen that. I have seen well worded, logically presented evidence. Wikipedia is not about pushing the establishment views, people. The evidence that revisionists use commonly should definitely be a seperate section on this page.

Revisionist's arguments

In the section "Revisionists beliefs" why are their arguments not listed? There are perhaps three main arguments, but someone keeps taking them out when changes are made. Example, see changes made 10:31, 22 Sep 2004 by Wikipedia is to inform of the full truth, not push the status quo.

The article lists 9 of the claims make by deniers. One of the claims made by was incorporated into them. Wikipedia is not a venue for individuals to list their own favorite denial arguments, but rather lists the most common ones. If you think your shoe argument is a critical plank in the denial platform, please explain why. Jayjg 19:14, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Zundel appears to be one of the central figures in the revisionist movement and from a perusal of his web page, those seemed to be his main arguments. And I might add, others who know better could have added to that list or culled it down if they saw errors. But Jayig, your actions are defeating the purpose of a Wiki! Wikipedia is not about one person enforcing their views and guarding a wiki page! Wikipedia is about many people adding small changes to the page, and having small edits gradually refine the page. You seem intent on locking one static version for all time. Unless you see outright vandalism, you should be doing nothing more than minor corrections. And rarely at that. Let others have a turn. When changes are made have a look a week later to see what became of them. Let others build on those ideas, or erase them. Wikipedia is survival of the fittest memes, and you are short circuiting that process by playing goalkeeper. Sept. 27, 2004

"Another point of great debate by Revisionists is, "What happened to the ash after the bodies were cremated?" Some speculate that some ash could have been used in fertilization experiments in crop fields, by the Germans."

I have never heard of this speculation. Any evidence, any literature for the "fertilization experiments"? In Auschwitz e.g. the ashes simply were thrown into a nearby river (see ). Captain-c 13:20, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

One argument of the revisionists is that there is nothing besides Hitler's political speeches and Mein Kampf to connect Hitler to killing Jews. These are words, not actions, the article states that there is a direct connection between Hitler and the final solution, but Hitler was smart enough to never sign an article saying "kill jews". He didnt even attend the Wannsee Conference, the only evidence that Hitler was connected is through Hearsay evidence such as Reinhardt Heydrich saying to others at Wannsee "hitler wanted me to propose a plan for the extermination of the jews".

IF u can prove me wrong can u put it in the article, because most parts of the article have no backing whatsoever, if there is a profesional source that anyone knows that cna prove me wrong i would like to know. all of teh links from this site are to ones against holocaust revisionism, add soem others like this one i found interesting, it said:

"Dr. Larson's findings? In an 1980 newspaper interview he said: "What we've heard is that six million Jews were exterminated. Part of that is a hoax." (note 2) And what part was the hoax? Dr. Larson, who told his biographer that to his knowledge he "was the only forensic pathologist on duty in the entire European Theater" of Allied military operations, (note 3) confirmed that "never was a case of poison gas uncovered." (note 4)"

here is a list of other helpful websites: there is another helpful website that has lots of Allied aerial photos showing a forestry camp in the war, then after the war no scarred landscape where this supposed large deathcamp was, i couldnt find it at the moment, i will keep looking----


User:Ezra: Polite notice: Try one more time to paste a non-Wikipedia article, and I will give up reverting you. Someone else will take care of you. -- Kaihsu 21:06, 2004 Apr 30 (UTC)

The statement of death threats and personal, libelous attacks being made by revisionists against Ken McVay is not only true, it is well-documented. He has received death threats, and documented them at his Web site. He has also had to take action to get unquestionably libellous accusations against him taken down from several web sites that smear him and accuse him of everything excent masterminding the Holocaust himself. --Modemac 23:33, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

1. Implicit permission from the author to post the article about revisionism is given. It isn't a copyright infringement. 2. There's a huge difference between revisionism and denial. Only biased people think otherwise.

regards, --Ezra 23:52, 2004 Apr 30 (UTC)

The statement of death threats and personal, libelous attacks being made by revisionists against Ken McVay is not only true, it is well-documented.

Those aren't the claims of which I was speaking. These were:

by proving them to be based upon misleading evidence, false statements, and outright lies.

There's nothing in the article that backs it up. It's all hyperbole.

--Ezra 00:08, 2004 May 1 (UTC)

The links to Leuchter and Nizkor do an adequate job in proving that statement. "Misleading evidence" -- the Leuchter Report (which was rejected in court). "False statements" -- David Irving (who lost his libel suit against Lipstadt). "Outright lies" -- the IHR (who backed away from their claim of a reward for proof that gas chambers existed at Auschwitz). --Modemac 00:21, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

Finkelstein proved Lipstadt to be a plagarist. I'll get back to you on IHR's suit. --Ezra 00:27, 2004 May 1 (UTC)

Samuel J. Howard Linking revisionism with denial isn't neutral. --Ezra 00:42, 2004 May 1 (UTC)

Request for commentary

A request for commentary has been posted to Wikipedia:Requests for comment. Ezra, this seems to be my opinion versus yours, and I am not happy with that. But I also don't appreciate being called a censor in your insistence that the article is not NPOV. --Modemac 00:45, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

Page has now been reverted and protected--Samuel J. Howard 00:49, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

The internet is a big place. You commissars can have this site.

--Ezra 01:47, 2004 May 1 (UTC)

Revisionism vs. Denial

The problem is this: Holocaust Revisionism *SHOULD NOT* be redirected to Holocaust Denial! There are deniers, yes, but they are a fringe element just like there are far-left and far-right elements in any organization. Believe it or not, most Holocaust revisionist are sincere in their beliefs and dedication to get to the truth, but because of politics their arguments are often met with name calling and accusations. Let's not let politics become the norm on Wikipedia. I think the problems with this page will keep happening until there are two seperate brnaches made - one for Holocaust revisionists and one for deniers. Furthermore, in the beliefs section, the primary *evidence* that revisionists cite should be mentioned, otherwise this page is not presenting an accurate view on what revisionists are about. Whitewashing has no place in Wikipedia. - Sept. 22, 2004

Holocaust denial and Holocause revisionism are the same phenomenon; there is no practical difference between saying under 1,000,000 Jews die as a result of malnutrition etc. vs. saying none at all were killed. Jayjg 19:21, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Again you are taking the extreme fringe elements and saying they represent the whole study of revisionism. What about people who think 3 million? Are they also deniers? Since I was last here... some guy (I can't remember who but maybe Jay something), keeps reverting the Holocaust denial pages back whenever any small changes are made. This to me seems to go directly against what the Wikipedia movement is all about and essentially locks those pages into a static form. Wikipedia is not about a single person reverting all changes back to his vision. Wikipedia is about many people contributing small changes, not keeping the establishment media views about things the same. No, it's not about allowing lies, but the changes I saw from other people were not lies, just well phrased, neutral statements about what Holocaust revisionists believe to be their evidence. - Sept. 27, 2004
Why do you characterize these people as "the extreme fringe elements"? Which "legitimate revisionists" say that 3 million Jews were killed? Jayjg 18:53, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I quote from, a "Holocaust Revisionists" website, on the page explaining where Holocaust "revionists" explain what "revisionism" is: Most Revisionists would probably say half a million, perhaps as many as a million. But not six million. Are these people also "extreme fringe elements"? Jayjg 19:11, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Jayig, it is not up to you decide what number is an acceptable number to consider denial. The dictionary meaning of the term denial is clear - meaning not at all. Holocaust denial means people who think it did not happen. Holocaust revisionism, whether 3 million or 0.5 million, falls under the definition of revisionism. You seriously need to read the NPOV (neutral point of view) section in Wikipedia, and you also need to read the Ownership of Pages section, which warns against exactly what you are attempting to do. If changes are made that do not qualify as vandalism, and they are neutral facts, then hands off. Let others modify it, which is why the Wikipedia was made in the first place. Even a completely biased Revisionist page by a revisionist would serve as a better starting point than what is here, because it would allow an accurate summary of what they are all about, which could then be modified by others until it was NPOV. - Sept. 29, 2004
Please read the article to understand what Holocaust Revisionism is. Also, please answer my questions. Jayjg 02:31, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think the linking of revisionism and denial is problematic as well. It is quite possible—even likely—that some of our current understanding of the Holocaust is incorrect. We may have gotten some stories wrong, and may be completely missing others, as is the case with most historical events, especially complex ones. The claim that the Holocaust didn't happen, or that it was much smaller in magnitude than 6m deaths, on the other hand, is a much different claim, and according to most historians untrue beyond a doubt. --Delirium 02:40, May 1, 2004 (UTC)

Delirium, what you are talking about is not the same topic as what Holocaust revisionists write about. People who term themselves "Holocaust revisionists" are clearly and explicitly trying to deny that the Holocaust occured. RK 13:29, Oct 3, 2004 (UTC)

Denial is a species of revisionism. --Samuel J. Howard 02:48, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

Yes, but so is the historical work done by the Wiesenthal center. Revisionism istelf is not the problem, it's the motives that are the problem. Roma/Sini seek to draw attention to their cause, the pink triangle is now a common US pop culture element, etc. All of the parties involved seem to seek to advance their beliefs. Some try to advance their beliefs by getting to raw facts, others just make bizarre and outlandish statements ("human soap" is a good issue to pick through a fine toothed comb for examples of this debate in the last 50 years) Ronabop 08:02, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

Yes, but it is not equivalent. There is legitimate Holocaust revisionism taking place every time a new document is discovered or a death toll is adjusted up or down. Denying that it occured at all, or that it was a minor event, is a very specific sort of revisionism. This tends to complicate things, because some "anti-revisionist" groups will attack anyone who challenges the "official" account of the Holocaust, even though those challenges have sometimes turned out to be true (the claim that it didn't occur at all, of course, is not true). In any case, I've tried to make the wording more clear. --Delirium 03:04, May 1, 2004 (UTC)

You are confusing actual historical revisionism about the Holocaust - which is real and legitimate - with the phrase "Holocaust revisionism", which is used by anti-Semites who try to whitewash their denial of the Holocaust. See the main article on historical revisionism for a clarification of this point. RK 13:29, Oct 3, 2004 (UTC)
As an example, it is true that some figures, especially the numbers of Russians and Slavs killed in concentration camps, were inflated by the Soviets. This is a revisionist claim, and a correct one. That does not in any way mean that the Holocaust did not occur. Ergo, revisionism is acceptable and sometimes correct, whereas denial is not. --Delirium 06:47, May 1, 2004 (UTC)
I think the problem is partly equating partial revisionism with total denial of a currently accepted point of view. The equating of such is not the whole problem, revisionists at SWC an IHR are both trying to change the "accepted" story, as more data comes to light. There's still a very big difference between saying "1 million were murdered, 3 million were worked to death" and "nobody was murdered". Denial is taking the perspective that nobody was intentionally brutally murdered, revisionism is pointing out a difference between typhus and as chambers (or a bullet) as the cause of death. Neither perspective will bring the victims back, but they can help explain what happened. As an example, I once saw a figure that 6 million were gassed. No credible historian would ever make such a claim now, but some used to. Ronabop 08:02, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

The term "Holocaust revisionism" has developed specifically in reference to a form of Holocaust denial. Those who call themselves revisionists, such as the Institute of Historical Review, are not interested in neutral scholarship but in putting forward arguments to minimise the Holocaust. This is quite different from legitimate Holocaust researchers who update scholarship in light of new evidence. IE there is a difference between what can be called the "Holocaust revisionist school" and those who simply revise our understanding based on new evidence. Perhaps the best way to think of it is as Holocaust Revisionism with an capital R that has a specific agenda and ordinary historical revising that occurs all the time. Because of the connotations the term "holocaust revisionism" now carries no legitimate academic who, say, based on neutral research believes that say deportatins from a particular town occured on a Tuesday instead of a Wednesday or that 3000 people were killed in a particular incident instead of 4000 would use the term "Holocaust revisionism" to describe their work. AndyL 08:50, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

Well using a capital, or lowercase, might serve as one form of distinction. Is there a better term for historians who work exclusively to rivise our knowledge of the holocaust, besides deniers? Perhaps this article could be a shorter fork article, leading to deniers, scholars, etc.Ronabop 08:02, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

Stating death toll as a fact?

I modified the following sentence, by inserting "mainstream historians say": The figure "six million" (which is actually closer to eleven million, when counting the other ethnic, religious, and minority groups targeted for extinction).

My change was reverted with the comment "please don't weasal the facts". My intention was to move away from unsupported assertions in the article, toward information about what people believe. In this case, wouldn't it be better to attribute the belief that 11 million people were executed to particular (probably numerous and well respected) historians? Wmahan.

The problem is that it legitematizes the debate to say "Mainstream historians say x" "Deniers say y" X is the facts, not just someone's opinions. If you want you could write "X. Attested to by mainstream historians."--Samuel J. Howard 18:12, May 5, 2004 (UTC)

While I understand why Wmahan wants specify that this is a belief by mainstream historians, I think that that is understood simply because it is stated as a fact. It isn't necessary to say that this is the mainstream belief; if it wasn't, then it would be the subject of the denial article. --Caliper 18:32, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies. I can see the logic in simply stating the mainstream view. I just think we need to carefully choose the assumptions of the article because it specifically discusses questioning of a mainstream belief. In my view, it doesn't legitimize deniers to say that "99% of people, including all mainstream historians, believe X, while the small number of deniers say Y". According to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia's policy is "presenting conflicting views without asserting them." It further defines a "fact" as "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute." Hence Samuel J. Howard's "X is the facts, not just someone's opinions" is tantamount to saying that Holocaust denial isn't a serious dispute. I'm not convinced that we should make such an assumption implicit in the article, but if others think we should, I'm willing to drop the issue. Wmahan. 19:11, 2004 May 5 (UTC)

The Institute for Historical Review

Recent edits by and have contended that Mel Mermelstein never actually provided evidence to the Institute for Historical Review. I hope that by writing that his evidence was never released is a good enough compromise, although I do not know if this is true. I would, however, like to respond to the following quote by

The American way of directing someone to the right patch is showing the man that he is wrong, not by suing him. Why aren't the deniers proved wrong with facts if there are facts?

This is an interesting statement. First off, while it would be wonderful if that were in fact the American way, these days it is becoming more and more common for people everywhere, but especially in the United States to sue each other over nothings. Putting that aside, this is not even a nothing. The man was promised $50,000 for a service which he provided, and he was not paid. So he sued. Thank god we live in a society where you can't rip someone off like that.

As for the second part, why aren't deniers proved wrong with facts if there are facts? This is a very good question, and is one that this article tries to examine. It is difficult to understand how pieces like the report from Himmler to Hitler, shown here, do not prove to deniers that the Holocaust existed. What it comes down to is that there is enough proof for most of the world, and that the disbelievers almost unanimously either ignore evidence, or create false evidence to prove their points. --Caliper 00:08, 20 May 2004 (UTC)

Biased Article as Currently Written

I'm not a holocaust revisionist, but the pamphlet at Vrij Historisch Onderzoek (Dutch for Free Historical Reserach) made some "interesting" arguments that I was hoping to see discussed (debunked?) here. Instead I see statements like:

"independent research has shown these [revisionist] claims to be based upon flawed research, biased statements, and even deliberately falisified evidence."

Where's the link to that independent research? Is this true of all revisionist claims? I highly doubt it.

The paragraph quoting Ken McVay is equally bad:

"They'll cite a historical text: 'K.K. Campbell says on page 82 of his famous book that nobody died at Auschwitz.' Then you go to the Library of Congress and look up K.K. Campbell, page 82, and what you find he really said was, 'It was a nice day at Dachau.' They get away with this because they know goddamn well most people don't have time to rush off to the Library of Congress."

Is this how revisionists go about making all their claims? Again, I very seriously doubt it!

I could go on and on. I'm sure I could find a biased or flawed argument made by a mainstream historian on this, but that doesn't mean mainstream history is wrong.

My point is the article as written doesn't do an effective job of presenting the revisionist viewpoint, but only debunking it. Have no revisionists chimed in yet, or are their comments being censored by the Wiki community? I think a much better way to present this issue is for both sides of the argument to be shown for each of the claims that revisionists make (currently 9 are listed in the Wikipedia article), so that the reader can see for him/herself the merits of both sides of the argument, and then conclude that revisionism is false (or not). Don't just present the non-revisionist viewpoint, as that actually weakens the non-revisionist argument, and it isn't even the point of this article. I agree with Sage's comments above; this article is clearly NOT NPOV.

I'll try and chime in with some changes soon if I find time, but if not, hopefully the Wiki community allows for a more balanced discussion about revisionism. Falcon91Wolvrn03

Do revisionists go about making all their claims with blatant misstatements and bogus claims? Yes they do. Where is the link to the independent research? If you can provide links to independent links other than the existing ones (such as Nizkor), than please do so. The problem here is that the majority of revisionist claims and writings are lies and bullcrap. I'll repeat that: they are lies and bullcrap. This has been proven, repeatedly, by the ones who *have* researched these claims. And how have the revisionists responded to this? With distortions of the truth, ridiculous "Jewish conspiracy" claims, and other blathering of that sort. This really is how they operate, and IMHO it is quite NPOV to state this -- because it's the truth. --Modemac 11:21, 24 May 2004 (UTC)
If all of their claims are bogus, that's fine, but I still think both sides should be presented - the bogus claims and the rebuttals. If we just say "no need to read about this issue, move along..." then we're doing the Wiki readers an injustice IMHO. Falcon91Wolvrn03 08:13, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
While I'm all for making fun of revisionists, it would be nice to have a comprehensive list of beliefs written by someone who actually believes what those of my parents' generation commonly refered to as "horse twat". (Googling this term can only end in sadness, so just take my word for it.) I mean, anonymous is right... the page was written by a bunch of people who find what we're writing about offensive. The few neo-nazis who have cared to contribute (Ezra comes to mind) have generally wiped entire pages and stuck up their own POV articles. --Caliper 03:51, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

Hey all, I made a few minor updates that I don't expect anyone to have a problem with. I also checked the page history, and I think that the article Ezra tried to post is an exceptional background to what deniers believe. I strongly feel it should be added to the page as it's own section, without necessarily changing anything else on the page. Does anyone have a problem presenting the detailed revisionist viewpoint? After all, that's kind of the point of the page, isn't it? Falcon91Wolvrn03 11:27, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

Oh dear - I'd love to think you might be right that no-one will have a problem with those edits, but given how emotive this issue is, I'll be surprised if that's the case. To me, they look fine.
Point taken, lol. Falcon91Wolvrn03 18:01, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
I'm not clear what you mean by adding that article to the page. Do you mean a link to it? I can't look at the article (blocked by Websense) but actually including the text would surely be a copyvio.--ALargeElk 11:42, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
No, I meant including the full text of the article near the beginning of this topic, with credit to the orininal author (here is the article). I've seen that article posted on many, many websites, as it seems to be the authoritative guide to why deniers believe what they do. According to Ezra, the original author has already given permission for it to be copied here. I would point out that this is denier propoganda. But I think it summarizes the denier position so well, that it would be an injustice to their position not to post it. This Wiki website, as currently written, should be called "Denying Holocaust deniers", as it only focuses on that, without explaining their position in any detail, which is what I believe it should do. I'm not against denying deniers, but a fair summary of their position should be provided, IMHO. I'll wait at least a week to hear comments before adding it back in. Falcon91Wolvrn03 18:01, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
There is a blanket statement on the author's website that the article may be reproduced as long as it is not for profit, but I felt that having something so long that describes only one side of the argument is very POV. It would be better to summarise the important bits, and link to the article for people who wanted to read more. Remember that we want to present facts. The facts are not what Holocaust deniers believe, but that they believe what they do.
I understand your point. But I think your logic is somewhat contradictory. You said "the facts are not what Holocaust deniers believe, but that they believe what they do. But what is it that they do believe? I think that's where the article would come in handy. Falcon91Wolvrn03 21:10, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
This is fun! That's what I meant. The article is a great way of learning what Holocaust deniers believe. The problem with using the article on this page is that it states what deniers believe as facts. What we need to do is take their beliefs from the article, discuss how they came up with them, and then show why they are not true. --Caliper 04:27, 26 May 2004 (UTC)
I think that's very fair. Falcon91Wolvrn03 05:50, 26 May 2004 (UTC)
As for your changes, I like most of them. The only part I'm unsure about is the list of what Holocaust deniers do not believe. I have personally had arguments with people who do in fact deny all of those things. Can we say Holocaust deniers deny all of that, and that Holocaust revisionists do not? Or perhaps a statement like "while some people believe that the Holocaust was entirely made up, many revisionists do not deny the following:" --Caliper 18:11, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
From the extensive reading that I'm now doing, I honestly don't believe that too many holocaust deniers deny those things on the list I added. I got that list from a hardcore denier website. How about a compromise that states "Many" holocaust deniers also stress...", because I sincerely believe that to be the case. Falcon91Wolvrn03 21:10, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
Ok, I just redefined "denier" and "revisionist". I think these definitions might possibly make everyone happy. Any feedback?
Would anybody object to my changing the first sentence to "Holocaust denial is the claim that the currently accepted historical version of the Holocaust is either exagerated, or completely falsified."? I agree with Falcon91Wolvrn03's wanting to generalise it, but I feel that instead of generalising it he has removed all but one specific beliefe. --Caliper 04:44, 26 May 2004 (UTC)
Sounds really good to me. Falcon91Wolvrn03 05:50, 26 May 2004 (UTC)
How about changing "The claim that the currently accepted historical version of the Holocaust is either exagerated or completely falsified" to "The claim that the historically accepted version of the Holocaust is either greatly exagerated or completely falsified"? It sounds better to me, but I'll let others confirm. Falcon91Wolvrn03 07:00, 26 May 2004 (UTC)
Ok, I changed "currently accepted historical version" to "mainstream historical version", as "currently accepted" could be contentious. Also changed "exaggerated" to "highly exaggerated" to distinguish deniers from softcore revisionists. Falcon91Wolvrn03 13:50, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

The Auschwitz Plaque

The article mentions a commemorative plaque at Auschwitz being changed from "Four million people suffered and died here at the hands of the Nazi murderers between the years 1940 and 1945. In 1990, a new plaque replaced the old one" to "May this place where the Nazis assassinated 1,500,000 men, women and children, a majority of them Jews from diverse European countries, be forever for mankind a cry of despair and of warning." Out of academic interest, is this factual, and if so why was it changed? -- Kizor 09:52, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

Yes, the plaque was changed. But it had nothing to do with "revisionists" or their efforts. Basically, the Soviets estimated the number of dead as close to the number of people that could have been cremated, as a rough estimate. The Soviets stuck with this number, while historians looked at various sources, including the number of people deported to the camp. After the Iron Curtain fell, Soviet pressure to keep the original Soviet estimate ceased and the accurate estimate replaced it. See for more info. 11:47 16 Oct 2004 (EDT)

Removed from the article

The "Breitbard Document" describes a commemorative plaque at Auschwitz to the victims that died there, which read, Four million people suffered and died here at the hands of the Nazi murderers between the years 1940 and 1945. In 1990, a new plaque replaced the old one. It now says, May this place where the Nazis assassinated 1,500,000 men, women and children, a majority of them Jews from diverse European countries, be forever for mankind a cry of despair and of warning. The lower numbers are due to the fact that the Soviets "purposely overstated the number of non-Jewish casualties at Auschwitz-Birkenau", according to the Simon Wiesenthal Center (as printed in the Breitbard Document).

Most references to this "Breitbard Document" appear to be on revisionist websites, which refer to it as "The Breitbard Document, as published by the Simon Wiesenthal Center". However, a search of the SWC website finds zero hits for the word "Breitbard". Until someone can give a cite for the "Breitbard Document", I'm removing the relevant text. -- The Anome 10:19, 26 May 2004 (UTC) suggests to search for Breitbart instead of Breitbard. This indeed yields a link:

That was fast. In my not so humble opinion the removed text should be returned with the addition of a note about its seeming vaporware status. Whether or not it's real, it does see use as an argument, as your search did demonstrate. The note could then be removed when and if someone gives the cite. --Kizor 10:31, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

Good idea. Over to you. -- The Anome 10:34, 26 May 2004 (UTC)
Done. After the usual bit of bungling. --Kizor 11:11, 26 May 2004 (UTC)
Is it possible that both plaques are in fact correct? Is it possible that while four million people "died and suffered", only 1.5 million were actively murdered? The remaining 2.5 million would presumably have either died from malnutrition or survived. --Caliper 17:45, 26 May 2004 (UTC)
The phrase "suffered and died" seems to denote one compound action (all suffered and then all died) rather than two discrete actions (some suffered, others died; or, all suffered and some (but not all) of those suffering then died). Moreover, if you starve to death because your captors haven't gotten around to murdering you, that still qualifies as murder. Regardless, I would still like to know the answer to Kizor's question: Did the plaque exist, what was its original wording, and what is the current wording? JHCC 18:56, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Cremation arguments

As an aside, I remember some revisionist/deniers use the argument that it is impossible to burn people in sufficient numbers to meet the figures cited, as huge amounts of fuel would be needed. However, the cremation industry has special guidelines for dealing with the cremation of overweight people, specifically citing that with a large human body mass, self-sustaining burning occurs, and that special precautions have to be taken to avoid damaging the oven. This strongly suggests that the same self-sustaining burning effect would occur with the mass of corpses from the Nazi death camps, eliminating the revisionist "fuel" argument. -- The Anome 10:34, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

That is a weak argument. First, it has to do with the ratio of body fat (which we all know burns well) to skin, muscle, and other wetware. I think the human body is something like 90% water, and water don't burn so good. Second, seriously, how many fat people do you think there would be after toiling in work camps and being given rations every day? - Sept. 27, 2004
Your response shows a lack of research. First, water evaporates quite well on heating, if the fire is hot enough. Once the water is gone, there is still some fat in the body (even in the muscle) even at low ratios of body fat. Finally, most revisionist claims involve only one cremation, then multiplying that fuel use by all bodies. However, once a crematoria is heated up, or a funeral pyre burning, it would be wasteful to let it burn completely out and _then_ add another body. Hence, the amount of fuel used for _subsequent_ burnings would be substantially reduced, if not eliminated. An anecdote would be that my printer is rated for 5pages/minute. However, from power on to first page coming out, it takes about 30 seconds. By revisionist math, I can't print more then 2 pages per minute, since I have to switch off the printer between pages, rather then waiting the initial 30 seconds only once. 11:58 16 Oct 2004 (EDT)

Holocaust Denial Examined

The paragraph entitled "Holocaust Denial Examined" is far from NPOV. Pointing out a few mistake and claiming all revisionists make the same errors is an overgeneralization (and probably false). The evidence in the rest of this article should speak for itself. Personally, I'm in favor of striking, or at least rewriting the the vast majority of this section. Falcon91Wolvrn03 21:30, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

While it's true that not all deniers and revisionists are coming up with their beliefs the same way, they're coming up with them some how. Give it a rewrite to make it less of a blanket statement, and we'll see how it looks. --Caliper 21:56, 26 May 2004 (UTC)
I started a rewrite, but here's what I discovered. The 1st paragraph states:
"Numerous accounts have been given (including evidence presented in court cases) of claimed "facts" and "evidence;" however, independent research has shown these claims to be based upon flawed research, biased statements, and even deliberately falisified evidence. Opponents of Holocaust denial have compiled detailed, numerous accounts instances where this evidence has been altered or manufactured (see below)"
Ken McVay, an activist who works to counter such claims on the Internet, described the modus operandi of Holocaust deniers in a 1994 interview:
"They'll cite a historical text: 'K.K. Campbell says on page 82 of his famous book that nobody died at Auschwitz.' Then you go to the Library of Congress and look up K.K. Campbell, page 82, and what you find he really said was, 'It was a nice day at Dachau.' They get away with this because they know goddamn well most people don't have time to rush off to the Library of Congress. But people read that and say to themselves, 'Who would lie about such a thing when it's so easy to prove them wrong? They must be telling the truth.' ""
Famous book? I did a Google for "K.K. Campbell" and "Auschwitz", and found nothing but repeats of the above statement. So I tried the Library of Congress website to see what book K.K. Campbell wrote. Again, nothing related to the Holocaust. Finally, I did a Google search for "K.K. Campbell" and "Holocaust". I then found K.K. Campbell here. But that guy isn't a Holocaust denier, but rather someone who despises them! Was this really a truthful claim? Why doesn't the famous K.K. Campbell's book show up on a single holocaust denier website with a Google search??? I probably just didn't do a good enough Google search (maybe someone else can help me out here).
Ok, next paragraph:
In other cases, conflation of facts is used to mislead. A frequently-used photo shows a fairly flimsy gas chamber door. The intent is to confuse the reader into believing that gas chambers could not be practically used for extermination, because the victims would break down the door rather than be executed. While the photo is a real gas chamber door, it is not a door that was used on an extermination gas chamber; it is a door used on a de-lousing gas chamber.
It appears this "gas chamber" door was being shown to millions of tourists at Auschwitz as evidence of the holocaust, before it was finally pointed out that this probably wasn't used for gassing (see pictures here). Again, a very misleading story is presented as evidence that deniers mislead!
Interestingly, while searching for the background to this, I found something about "page 82" at Could this be the p. 82 referenced above? After all it came from a book that wasn't meant to be a denier book:
"One photograph shows some inmates in their striped uniforms employed in disinfecting clothing in front of a battery of three autoclaves; here the disinfection is done by steam; elsewhere, it may be done by warm air, with Zyklon B, or even with other gases; the true concern of the Germans was to exterminate vermin, not men, by any and all means (p. 82).
Now that we found the book, we can find out if that quote actually matches what's in the book. Assuming that's the p. 82 Ken McVay was referring to.
The last claim is that deniers are anti-semitic. The proof is that when Holocaust deniers attempt to explain why they think the Holocaust was fabricated, their answers sometimes come across as anti-Semitic. Seems like a no-win situation if you ask me. How can you give a rational explanation about this without putting at least someone down?
Bottom line is that I think the "Haulocaust Denial Examined" section needs a lot of work. And I don't know how to rewrite what's there given the above findings. I hope the other evidence doesn't have this many holes.Falcon91Wolvrn03 01:31, 27 May 2004 (UTC)
Sure enough, I couldn't find the book "Auschwitz : technique and operation of the gas chambers" on Amazon, but it was registered with the Library of Congress. Whether it's the book Ken McVay was talking about or not, it appears to validate the gas chambers (as the title implies), while at the same time making at least one statement validating what deniers claim (assuming the VHO site is telling the truth). I wish I had access to this book! Falcon91Wolvrn03 06:11, 27 May 2004 (UTC)
Dude... ok, from the top. First of all, we're not talking about famous books like Moby Dick, we're talking about famous books like if you're a World War 2 historian, you've heard of it. Probably not in print, certainly not at your local book store, and generally only found at a very large library. So this is why they're not easy to find. As for K.K. Campbell not being a Holocaust denier, that's exactly the point being made: K.K. Campbell never said people didn't die. The Holocaust deniers made that up, and since Campbell's respected, others believe it.
Your point that the book is not gospel is absolutely fair (I don't know a thing about the book). But if the book says what the deniers claim it says, and not "It was a nice day at Dachau", then Ken McVay is wrong on this point, and it shouldn't be used as evidence. That's why I'm interested in knowing what the book was, and what it actually says. Falcon91Wolvrn03 07:39, 27 May 2004 (UTC)
As for the gas chambers, you've pretty much once again made the point that's in the article: Deniers say "this couldn't possibly have been used," and people believe it. Picture this: you're a door. Ok, now you're the same door, but it's 50 years later and your building isn't weatherproofed. Guess what, you look like crap. Oh, and the door they said had a thin window that could be smashed? Look closely, there's no window. Quite frankley, I've been through that entire page, and I can easily counter every argument they make. As for, have you looked at that sight? I'd sooner trust Richard Nixon's blog. --Caliper 06:52, 27 May 2004 (UTC)
Once again, your point that the door could have deteriorated over time is valid. This door was once presented to the world as proof of the gassings, but now the claim appears to be "it is not a door that was used on an extermination gas chamber; it is a door used on a de-lousing gas chamber". That's exactly what revisionsts claimed all along. I don't see how they're the ones deceiving people with the pictures. They're the ones that helped prove they aren't real. Falcon91Wolvrn03 07:39, 27 May 2004 (UTC)
I think I see where the misunderstanding is. Historians have never claimed the delousing rooms to be gas chambers. It is the revisionists who show the pictures of the delousing doors, and claim that they are in fact the doors to what are supposed to be gas chambers. "How can these," they say "be gas chambers, when people could clearly break through them?" Therefor, they claim, there were no mass gassings. What they don't show is the other, sturdier doors to rooms which are in fact gas chambers (although I imagine even these look like hell after all those years.) --Caliper 19:15, 27 May 2004 (UTC) was how I sourced that text. Ronabop 06:03, 29 May 2004 (UTC)
Yes, I see the misunderstanding as well. The question is if the picture being shown on the denier's websites was/is presented as a gas chamber for execution as the deniers claim, or if it was always believed to be a delousing chamber. I think it should be real easy to find the answer out. I'll look into it and discuss what I find. Hopefully, others do the same. Falcon91Wolvrn03 21:41, 27 May 2004 (UTC)
I looked into it and this is what I've found: The statement made was that "conflation of facts is used to mislead. A frequently-used photo shows a fairly flimsy gas chamber door. The intent is to confuse the reader into believing that gas chambers could not be practically used for extermination, because the victims would break down the door rather than be executed. While the photo is a real gas chamber door, it is not a door that was used on an extermination gas chamber; it is a door used on a de-lousing gas chamber." This is what I've found - the door at Krema I in Auschwitz was indeed the door to an execution gas chamber, according to the Nizkor website. So our example of how deniers mislead is actually misleading (an outright lie really). It needs to go or be replaced with a valid example.
Again, was how I sourced that text. Ronabop 06:03, 29 May 2004 (UTC)
As for the vho site, here's a quick summary of what I think about it: I first heard of revisionism very recently when a Jewish friend of mine claimed another person was anti-Semitic becuase he was a Holocaust Revisionist. I didn't know what that meant, so I looked it up on Google and came across the VHO site. I thought the arguments were so strong, I came here to see what this site had to say. I noticed it didn't say anything at all about the revisionist arguments other than they are BS. That's why I suggested revising this site - to try and help debunk the revisionist claims. In order to do that, you need to present the revisionist viewpoints. I'm certain the revisionist arguments will lose in the end, but so far I'm not impressed with what little I've sifted through. Falcon91Wolvrn03 07:39, 27 May 2004 (UTC)
I support you in doing this, and I'm sorry if I sometimes come across as the opposite. I think it is important to put revisionist views here, but I sometimes feel that you tone them down a bit. Remember that the sites you're looking at put themselves forward as revisionist. I don't think you've found any true denier sites. What you will find is that there are many many scary people out there who say that the holocaust was completely made up, or that all the deaths were a result of allied bombing. There are even people out there who say it didn't happen, but that it should have and that the world would be a better place if Hitler had won. It's important to note the difference between deniers and revisionists, and what they believe. Revisionists tend to come across as great guys. They put themselves forward as the victims of misunderstanding at the hands of the Jews. Deniers are just outright neo-nazis. It's great that you're trying to put their views here, and I will help you where I can, but make it very clear that the mainstream view is the mainstream view for a reason: revisionists are wrong. --Caliper 19:15, 27 May 2004 (UTC)
And I agree. I think this site should and will ultimately disprove the deniers, but we need be as fair as possible in doing this, without making straw man arguments about their points of view. I don't think I'm "toning down" their points of view at all, I'm simply trying to capture the opinions expressed on the VHO/CODAH/IHR websites as best as possible, which you've implied might not actually be "denial" viewpoints, but rather "revisionist" viewpoints. Perhaps others can chime in, and give an opinion as to whether or not they feel those are "revisionist" or "denial" websites, as defined by this article. If they are "revisionist", then I believe we should start a new article called "Holocaust Revisionism" to express those points of view. Falcon91Wolvrn03 21:41, 27 May 2004 (UTC)

What Deniers DON'T Believe

I previously added the following statement because most people don't realize Holocaust deniers stress these things:

Holocaust deniers also stress that, contrary to popular belief:

  1. they do not deny that Jews were persecuted under the Third Reich;
  2. they do not deny that Jews were deprived of civil rights;
  3. they do not deny that Jews were deported;
  4. they do not deny the existence of Jewish ghettos;
  5. they do not deny the existence of concentration camps;
  6. they do not deny the existence of crematoriums in concentration camps;
  7. they do not deny that Jews died for a great number of reasons, although they claim there were no mass murders;
  8. they do not deny that other minorities were also persecuted such as gypsies, Jehovah's Witnesses, homosexuals, and political dissenters;
  9. and finally, they do not deny that all the above mentioned things were unjust.

It was changed to "revisionists stress" with the comment that "deniers stress no such thing". By making this comment, you've just proven exactly the point I was trying to make, and why I believe this point absolutely needs to be made.

Don't take my word for it. Here is what every one of the leading denier websites has to say:

  1. From VHO - This link was the source of the above information.
  2. From CODOH - "REVISIONISTS AGREE with establishment historians that the German National Socialist State singled out the Jewish people for special and cruel treatment" and "Consequently, Jews were stripped of their rights, forced to live in ghettos, conscripted for labor, deprived of their property, deported from the country of their birth and otherwise mistreated. Many tragically perished in the maelstrom." This website also links to the VHO website when you click "Introduction" on their main page.
  3. From IHR - "They do not dispute the fact that large numbers of Jews were deported to concentration camps and ghettos, or that many Jews died or were killed during the Second World War."

If you revert back again, please site your denier sources, and compare the weight of those sources to the combined weight of the above three very popular hardcore denier websites that I've listed above. In case you happen to know a denier that doesn't agree with the above list, I've added the word "most" in front of "deniers also stress" as a compromise.

Again, the fact that you don't believe these things about deniers makes it that much more important to list.

I need to point out that's home page's title is "Historical Revisionism". Indeed, your quote begins with "REVISIONISTS AGREE..." And ihr stands for the "Institute for Historical Review". These are not denier websites, but revisionist websites. I think we should therefor be able to agree that the list you have found is based on what revisionists think, not what deniers think. I intend to change it back shortly after midnight EST, unless you have further concerns. --Caliper 19:27, 27 May 2004 (UTC)
I think it's fair to say that deniers prefer to call themselves revisionists, so that's the term you'll probably find on any denier website. Is it your position then that the VHO and CODAH websites are "revisionist," as they claim, and not "denial"? If so, that's fine, but then I think we need to start a separate article for "Holocaust Revisionism" to express the VHO/CODAH/IHR point of view, because those are the ones receiving the most attention. By the way, if you do feel that the VHO/CODAH/IHR websites are revisionist, are you aware of any "denier" websites? Falcon91Wolvrn03 21:44, 27 May 2004 (UTC)
Caliper, you are just plain wrong. The IHR is an anti-Semitic Holocuast denial group that is a front from Neo-Nazism. Please stop suuporting their propaganda. RK 13:28, Oct 3, 2004 (UTC)

I'm going to be off the computer for up to a week, but my feeling is this:

  • when presenting the revisionist/denier viewpoint, it's only fair to write about what they say their own opinions are (verifiable), not what others say their opinions are. I got the above the above list from several of their websites. Do you have any verifiable denier sources that disagree with the list above? Falcon91Wolvrn03 00:16, 28 May 2004 (UTC)
This is rather unfortunate, since I'm feeling like we just got to a point where we agree with each other. By the time you get back, I'll be gone, pretty much for the summer. I'm going to look around for some hardcore denier websites (although I hate to give them the traffic) and post them here soon, although it's shaping up to be a busy weekend. As for making a seperate revisionist page, I was very much in favour of it, but didn't have the time to write it before it got deleted. There had been a revert war, and people pretty much decided that it would be better just to cover both here. I would encourage you to write one on your user page and getting approval before posting it, otherwise some of the hardliners are likely to get all angsty on you. Good luck! --Caliper 18:59, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

Objections to featured article

  • Object. The current sections of the article are good, but I find the article as a whole to be somewhat incoherent. Also, it is lacking quite a lot of information vital to the topic (see list below). I really hope somebody (I don't have the right information) tries to make these improvements, because I thikn this topic deserves a good article. Jeronimo 10:53, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • I miss a historical overview of holocaust denial. When did the first deniers appear? Is or was there a "movement" of some sort? Was there any serious denial prior to the rise of the internet? The sections on the specific "episodes" (Zundel, Irving, etc.) could become subsections in a history section.
    • "Beliefs of Holocaust deniers" is brief and unclear. Do they all believe this? If not, are there any major "streams" in who believes what? Some references to sources used for this are also desirable.
    • The question "Why do people deny the Holocaust?" is hardly addressed satisfactory. Only one quote is given, but no further evaluation. What are the scientific views (if any) on this? Are there pyschological reasons behind this? Related, who are the deniers? Are they "angry white men"? Which countries are they from? Or are their numbers too few for such observations?
    • Relations with anti-semitism (and racism) are mentioned, but that's it. Are there strong ties between these?
    • The fact that "holocaust denial" is illegal in several countries deserves more detailed information.
    • Frankly, the section "Evidence of the Holocaust" is much too big. It is way more detailed than the "Beliefs of Holocaust deniers" section; this should be a bit more balanced. I think the lead paragraph of this section, with a good reference to Nizkor should suffice for this article. Perhaps the current text could move to a separate article Evidence of the Holocaust (or so).


  • Object. The article is too partial, needs NPOV. cbraga 02:36, Jun 3, 2004 (UTC)
  • Neutral. Maybe Wikipedia should have "Featured controversial articles" or something like that so more attention can be given to those topics worth talking about. Revth 07:05, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Object for the reasons that user Jeronimo already mentioned. Do holocaust deniers deceive themselves or do they deceive others? This is a difficult question to answer but at least a serious attempt should be made. Andries 08:45, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)


In the References section, there are two problematic phrases. If we sincerely want to present a neutral point of view, we cannot describe Evans' book as "an excellent case study," nor Butz's book as "not a good place for beginners to start." Both are opinions. Cribcage 21:07, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I was just going to comment on this, and I absolutely agree. I recommend removing those statements to maintain a neutral POV. Beginning 21:43, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)

Legal status

"Holocaust denial is a per se criminal offense in Austria, France, Germany, Israel, and Switzerland, and is punishable by fines and jail sentences."

More precisely, in France, the criminal offense is to contest in a public medium the existence of crimes against humanity as defined by the International Military Tribunal of Nuremberg.

Research denying the holocaust, or private conversations or writings denying the holocaust, are legal. David.Monniaux 15:59, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)


This artical on Holocaust Denial/Revisionism is most definitely not neutral, I was astonished after reading it that it didn't say at the beginning that the neutrality is disputed, I even reloaded the page twice to be sure, this is astonishing for me considering the page on Muhammed is disputed. And the fact that the artical dismisses Revisionism as Denial by another name is completely absurd. There is a school of thought and a serious Historical Holocaust Revisionist movement that does not deny mass murder but does dispute the numbers. This artical should have a warning at the beginning for new readers who are searching for information and not opinions. -Omar

Sorry, Nazi, but we aren't buying your story. The IHR may call itself "revisionist", but they are Nazi holocaust deniers. We will not allow you and other Nazi holocaust deniers to vandalize our articles. RK 13:36, Aug 25, 2004 (UTC)
What?! Your mindset is almost too unbelievable. Omar stated his position clearly and rationally, and you come back calling him a Nazi and saying it is "your" article?! Jesus, RK, you have no concept of what Wikipedia is about. Wikipedia is about many people making small changes to an article, revising the ideas and allowing survival of the fittest! If Wikipedia is about pushing the establishment media views, we might as well just have Encyclopedia Britannica up here instead. You sound like the one pushing a political view, not Omar. What he says about the difference between revisionists and deniers is absolutely 100% accurate.
Obviously, because it doesn't matter that these people believed that other groups should be completely eradicated, only how many they actually eradicate, right? --brian0918™ 18:12, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I never vandalised an article and I have no intention of doing such a thing. I'm not a Nazi either, I'm sorry you think I am. Ð Omar

Notwithstanding the specious casuistry and dissembling of Holocaust Deniers, there is no "serious Historical Holocaust Revisionist movement". Jayjg 16:02, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Valid points which don't fit

There are a few points which I don't think quite fit, but, not being an "expert" on holocaust denial, I wanted to ask about them here first.

First off, under the heading Beliefs of Holocaust deniers and revisionists there is a statement There was no specific order by Adolf Hitler or other top Nazi officials to exterminate the Jews, although their incarceration in concentration camps and use as slave labor in factories had that effect.. While accurate, I am wondering if holocause deniers really belive that incarceration in concentration camps and use as slave labor in factories had that effect (of extermination). Since they deny that the extermination took place, it seems unlikely they would concede to the second part of the point. Again, I am not challenging its factuality, I just think that maybe it doesn't belong under the heading.

Generally they seem to be inconsistent and use different arguments at different times. When arguing with an intelligent and informed person, especially one over, say, 40 who will have met some eyewitnesses, the claim that almost no jews suffered or died is just too big a lie. In every case, however, they attempt to move in that direction. In this case, in an argument where the mistreatment and killing of jews in the war is a given, the point is to pretend that whilst lots of jews were mistreated and killed, this was what happens in prison camps and wasn't as bad as e.g. the Russian Gulags. They are not totally stupid and realise that sometimes a smaller lie will be more effective than a bigger one. Mozzerati 20:48, 2004 Oct 29 (UTC)
So when pushed holocaust deniers will admit that jews (and gypsies and others) were incarcerated in concentration camps and that they were used as slave labour. Maybe we could add "they admit to incarceration in concentration camps and the use of slave labour in factories" to the beliefs section, and leave out that it had the effect of extermination. Again, I'm not denying this was the case, it just seems a little more logical for a section on Holocaust Deniers Beliefs.

Second, the statement: what they believe is a far-flung conspiracy. The conspiracy theory that some sort of global force is supressing holocaust deniers is certainly sketchy, but it is unlikely that holocaust deniers consider this so. I propose the removal of far-flung simply because it is unlikely to accurately reflect the beliefs of holocaust deniers, which the statement is describing.

I think you are confusing "far-fetched" (unlikely) with "far-flung" (widespread / in many different distant locations), though, on second thoughts, the original author's intention may have been the other one Mozzerati 20:48, 2004 Oct 29 (UTC)
I knew the difference, and reached the same conclusion (of the authors intention). Ok to leave it out?

These are just some suggestions to improve the flow of the article, I would appriciate any comments. --Uncle Bungle 02:51, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)


While I consider myself neither pro-Nazi nor pro-Jewish and am relatively uninterested in this topic, I believe this page should reside at Holocaust revisionism rather than Holocaust denial for the simple reason that Holocaust denial is a subset of Holocaust revisionism, while the reverse does not hold true. An article purpoting to encompass both topics therefore can only be fairly and neutrally titled "Holocaust revisionism". As such, I will be labeling this page with Template:TitleNPOV. Zh 01:43, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I propose a move to Holocaust denial and revisionism or something similar. Zh 01:52, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Holocaust Denial is not a subset of Holocaust Revisionism, it is a synonym for it. Holocaust Denial is not a claim that no Jews died during the Second World War; rather it is a denial that there was a "Holocaust", that is, a systematic program by Nazi Germany to kill millions of Jews. Jayjg 16:45, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Untrue. To label revisionism "denial" is to take it to the extreme to make it seem much more outlandish. This is the whole intent, that if you don't swallow the six million figure whole then you must believe that no Jews were persecuted at all, hence your argument automatically becomes "invalid". A simple, but effective, ploy by Holocaust believers.

How about putting it this way: "Holocaust revisionism is historical revisionism about the Holocaust. Holocaust denial is the most extreme form of Holocaust revisionism, which claims that the Holocaust never happened" -- The Anome 16:51, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)

Neither statement is accurate. Holocaust revisionism is not historical revisionism, as the article itself explains. And Holocaust denial is no more "extreme" than Holocaust revisionism, both deny the fundamental features of the Holocaust (deliberate murder of millions of Jews by Nazi Germany etc.). If anything, the issue here is between different labels, not different groups or a spectrum of belief. There aren't different groups among them proposing more or less radical forms of Holocaust revisionism, since the claims of all these groups are essentially identical; rather, opponents of Holocaust denial call its practitioners "Holocaust deniers", but Holocaust deniers call themselves "Holocaust revisionists". Jayjg 17:39, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
What about someone who denies that Hitler ordered the Holocaust though believes in other aspects of the Holocaust? That is a defensible point of view, though I personally do not believe in it, because there is no known written order by Hitler. Isn't that ""holocaust revisionism"? And isn't it unfair and inaccurate to lump it together with Holocaust denial? Andries 21:26, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"Revisionism" is a process by which the significance historical events are re-appraised. "Holocaust revisionism" is about challenging whether those events actually occured. For instance, there is no written "Hitler Order" for the Holocaust. Questioning what he knew, and when, would be a legitimate discussion. Implying that because such an order doesn't exist that he had no knowledge whatsoever is denial. Calling this "revisionism" is trying to dress up lies as something else and advance them into a scholarly endevour. 21:54 05 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Nuremberg trials

Nothing is mentioned of the Nuremberg trials, something that "evidence" of the Holocaust and the figures is largely based on. Trials which were extraordinarily biased, where "testmonies" were beaten out of SS officers and that the only labour camp prisoners to testify were those eager to tell horror stories of the camp despite the fact there were plenty of prisoners who would have testified of fair treatment and that there were no gas chambers etc. "The fact that there were plenty (...)" - any proof of that "fact"? as well as for [poor] "beaten SS officers"--MWeinz 16:25, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)?

Why do you think the evidence and figures were largely based on on the Nuremburg trials,and why do you think that testimonies were "beaten out of SS officers"? Jayjg 19:32, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Wonder how many of the survivors with the numbers still tatooed on them were lining up to testify of fair treatment and the absence of gas chambers? After all, to "objective" observers like MWeinz, the gas chambers were really just for delousing, and Zyklon B didn't exist! The only reason Truman was so insistent on having the trials is so that deniers would have no basis on which to stand later, since he knew that there would be such. Most other Allied leaders didn't really want trials, they just seemed to want summary executions of all high-ranking Nazis. While the trials might fall short of modern Western standards of jurisprudence in the 21st century, there were certainly elements of fairness, or why the variance in sentences (certainly far from all being death) and even the aquitals? As to testimony beaten out of SS officers, I've never seen any real proof of that, but if there were such, one doubts that they ever got anything like that which they had given. Rlquall 03:58, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The lone original 6 million figure comes from Hoess' signed "confession", which was written in English, a language he did not understand. There are actually droplets of Hoess' blood on the confession.
Amazing is the things people can parrot. First, Hoess _did_ understand English. Second, Hoess isn't a _lone source_ for anything, and he never made any claim about "6 million". And, since Hoess wrote out several confessions, and his memoirs, which he freely admitted his complicity in the mass murders at Auschwitz, which one of these "confessions" has droplets of his blood on it exactly? 02:44, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)


I used to look down on holocaust deniers, I really did. I was pro-Israel (and am) and hyper-anti-anti-semitism, I really was (and am). But now .. you've converted me. This superbly biased article has convinced me that even if the holocaust didn't happen, left-wing radicals would insist it did. Thanks! --bas

You're an idiot. History isn't written by "Left wing radicals", but by historians. And denial has nothing to do with true scholarship, but a thinly veiled anti-semitic attack. Denial is the last bastion of conspiracy theorists for a reason: you have to discard mountains of physical, testimonial (by both perpatrators and victims), and documentary evidence. You have to misread speeches, mistranslate words, and generally misconstrue every piece of evidence to come to the conclusion that the Holocaust didn't happen. A reasonable person would see that only a small band of ultra right-wing radicals would insist that this is "history".
History is also governed by politics of the time. Consider someone like David Irving. He tried to get all sides of the war, and he made some findings which contradicted or clashed with the "Jewish version" of events. Result? Labelled an anti-semite and considered "disgraced". No historian will ever be able to make an argument that is contrary to what is forcibly accepted, because they will be given this self same treatment. If your facts contradict Jewish belief, you are an anti-semite. And then because you are an anti-semite, your facts must be invalid. Do you see how monumentally easy it is to repress any evidence contrary to the Jewish version?
People who are innocent and telling the truth don't need to slander their opponents, make death threats, burn their publishing houses and try to get them deported or arrested. That's what people with something to hide and a massive vested interest, in monetary terms, are likely to do.
Do Historical FACTS actually change with time? No, actually, they don't. The way we look at the events may change, but it doesn't change what actually took place. As for David Irving, he's a been proven a liar in a court of law. He didn't try to get "all sides" of the war, but rather to whitewash the Nazi's and Hitler in paticular. Also, there is no "Jewish version" to history, only historiography, and if Irving had any EVIDENCE, then our view of history might be changed. However, he was twisting his "findings" so that they supported his ideological views, strongly enough to loose a libel case _he brought_ to supress criticism of his book.
Since Irving lost his libel trial, it means that his "opponents" were telling the truth, and that means it's not slander. If Irving and others of his ilk are such "truth seekers", why can't their so-called evidence withstand the scrutiny of a scholarly debate? Why do these people on a moral high ground have to hide in other countries, rather then facing "unjust" laws with the truth? There is this massive monied conspiracy alleged at every turn, but not one piece of evidence can be produced. The irony, of course, is that the Nazi's _did_ "slander their opponents, make death threats, burn [...] publishing houses and [...] get them deported or arrested", in addition to torturing and murdering them. But let's not talk about that, right? 02:59 Dec 30 2004 (UTC)

Proposal to move this article to "Holocaust revisionism"

I think that it is a violation of the NPOV rule to refer to revisionists as "holocaust deniers", and i think it is all but spitting in the face of the NPOV rule to have a redirect from the page named 'holocaust revisionism' page to this page.

I propose that all the instances of the word "denier" and "denial" in this article be replaced with "revisionist" and "revisionsim" (with perhaps a passing mention to the fact that some anti-revisionists refer to revisionists as "deniers"), and I propose to move the contents of this article to "holocaust revisionism", making this page a redirect to that one. The current version of things is biased and misleading (from my understanding, many/most revisionists do not "deny" the holocaust took place per se, but they question the alleged methods (e.g. gas chambers), numbers of dead, etc).

I am not a "Holocaust denier", although I always have been a little curious as to why many people essentially scream "Heresy!" when people question the prevailing "Holocaust dogma"; it's almost like they're treating the Holocaust as if it were a religion, which is bizarre to say the least -B Sveen, November 27th 2004.

This article doesn't violate the NPOV rule. An encyclopeda is a collection of facts, not opinions, and this is what the NPOV rule is about. I wrote a short piece above debunking the "revisionism" arguement. This isn't about discussing the implications of mass murder, or how it was carried out, but about trying to erase a part of history.
It's a red herring to say that "revisionists don't deny". They deny there were gas chambers, they deny there were millions of victims, and their denial goes on and on.
There is no "Holocaust dogma", just the History of the Holocaust. No matter how you dress it up, "1+1=3" will never be true, just as "there was no system of Nazi genocide" will not.
People only scream "Heresy" when someone is trying to say millions of people didn't die, not when people ask questions. In fact, it is "revisionism" or denial that requires a religious approach, since you have to ignore all of the evidence and embrace "blind faith" to seriously believe in it. 22:19 05 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Anonymous user -- I am not a revisionist, so I will not defend revisionism or its merits. But it does seem to me that this article is biased against the revisionists. The very fact that it is titled "holocaust denial" instead of "holocaust revisionism" is bias enough in my mind. No, holocaust revisionism is not "denial" of anything; to say so is almost certainly a misunderstanding of serious holocaust revisionism.
And I do think the Holocaust has reached quasi-religious status...those who deny the "infallibility" of Holocaust figures and the nazi-killing methods are treated in a somewhat similiar manner to those who, centuries ago, challenged the "infallibility of the Pope" and other doctrines of the Roman Church.
The West has become secular since the days when the Roman Catholic Church slaughtered 'heretics'. But assuradly, dogmas still exist in Western society, and one of the biggest dogmas is this whole business of the holocaust. Those who "deny" that the Holocaust is a quasi-religious-dogma are either not paying attention or refuse to acknowledge the truth.
Bear in mind that I am no revisionist, so if anyone responds to this, please don't challenge me on the merits of holocaust revisionism.
--B Sveen, December 5 2004.
"Dogma" occurs when something that is debatable is raised to an article of faith by fiat (i.e., the pope declares it to be such). No such fiat was necessary with the Holocaust; all it took was a careful documentation of the facts. There isn't any debate here based on facts but rather one between those who accept the facts and those who deny them. It is a similar "debate" as to those who clung to the "geocentric theory" long after it was proven that the earth orbits the Sun, or those who insisted on the flatness of the Earth long after it had been circumnavigated and wanted to debate those who understood and accepted the truth. Yes, there is a shade of difference between some who suggest that the was some Nazi abuse and some who suggest that there was almost none, but all who suggest that the Holocaust was the result of Nazi mismanagement and that there was no Wannasee Conference and no "final solution" are essentially in denial. "Historical revisionism" in the true sense is a reinterpretation of context, i.e., those who see the American Civil War as resulting from an essential incompetence of a political generation (in the "revisionist" version, Lincoln, Douglas, Davis et al. were not historical giants but rather a "blundering generation" of substandard politicians). It is not a denial of essential facts (i.e., denying that, say, the Battle of the Crater occurred or that most wealthy Southerners prior to 1861 were slaveholders).
Rlquall 13:16, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
B Sveen -- You say that the article can lead to a "misunderstanding of serious holocaust revisionism". There is no such animal. Revisionism is simply window dressing to lend a psuedo-scholarly veil to fact denial. I can call a belief that "1+1=3" with the label "mathematical revision", but that doesn't mean it's a legitimate discourse. Rlquall addressed your other points on dogma and true historical revisionism quite eloquently. You do try to equate belief in the Holocaust with religious belief; I wonder why you can't see revisionism in that same light, as it is based on what works out to be a huge consipracy, while there is lots of evidence that the Holocaust transpired in exactly the way that History says it did.
19:40 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The whole purpose of this article seems to be to conflate the notions of Holocaust revisionism and Holocaust denial. There is a simple factual entailment relationship between the interesting categories of Historical revisionism, Holocaust revisionism, and Holocaust denial. It is important that the wikipedia article structure should correspond to this nested relationship. To clump all of the material addressing Holocaust revisionism under the subcategory of Holocaust denial is to tar historical revisionists with the demonizing brush of Holocaust denial (and by implication apology for genocide). This is raw, unmitigated agitprop, and a gross violation of NPOV.
Aminorex 04:42, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
You comment seems to be an attempt to conflate the notions of Holocaust revisionism with historicial revisionism. They are different enterprises, using different methods, and having different purposes. There is no practical difference between Holocaust deniers and Holocaust revisionists; their methods and claims are essentially identical. Jayjg | (Talk) 16:13, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Aminorex that "Holocaust denial" and "Holocaust revisionism" are logically separable things (to put it crudely and simplistically, saying that 6,000 were killed is "denial", saying that 5 million were killed is revisionism). So perhaps there should be separate articles. With "Holocaust denial" about the view that the Holocaust essentially never happened. While "Holocaust revisionism" would be about the broader subject of questioning any of the predominant views concerning the Holocaust. Paul August 07:16, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)
As the article points out, "revising" the essential facts of the Holocaust is denial. If it wasn't 6 million Jews that were killed, but 300,000, and if they weren't killed deliberately, but died as a result of war conditions, and if there were no gas chambers, no crematoria, no plans to kill the Jews at all, then what is left of the Holocaust? Nothing. "Revisionism" is Denial under a more "scientific" name. Jayjg | (Talk) 16:13, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Yes, some who claim the title "revisionists" are "deniers". Are they all? Is questioning any of the predominant views concerning the Holocaust equivalent to denial? Paul August 19:31, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)
My point is the opposite; it's not that some who claim the title "revisionist" are deniers, but that all deniers call themselves "revisionists", and no-one calls themself a "denier". Please note my comment below. Stating that the fundamental characteristics of the Holocaust were false is denial, by definition, and the issue is not with questions regarding the Holocaust, but with assertions which fly in the face of overwhelming evidence. True historians of the Holocaust, even if they question aspects of the Holocaust, are not revisionists, since their methodologies differ radically from those of Holocaust deniers/revisionists. Jayjg | (Talk) 19:45, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
If I may interject here: this subject is so emotionally-driven for some (for obvious reasons of course), that otherwise rational individuals will call any and all revisionists "deniers". If I say that the Auschwitz death toll was revised downward by the Polish government 15 years ago from 4 million to 1.5 million, am I too a "denier" for stating this fact? Or maybe the Polish government are the "deniers"? There really is a difference between the foolishness that neo-nazi idiots spout and real revisionism as I understand it. I endorse Aminorex's message dated 04:42, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC), and would like to propose that an npov article on Holocaust revisionism (as seperate from denial) be written. I believe Holocaust revisionism currently re-directs to this page, holocaust denial. BSveen 21:36, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)
No, revising the Auschwitz death toll downward is not Holocaust denial, it has nothing to do with Holocaust denial. The essential facts of the Holocaust are not dependent on whether the death toll at Auschwitz was 4 million (as the Soviet bloc insisted for decades), or closer to 1 million (as most Holocaust historians believed and believe). Regarding your proposal, you have an insurmountable problem, in that Holocaust Revisionism is simply a euphemism for Holocaust Denial. Who are these "Holocaust Deniers"? Who claims to be one? How does the view of a "Holocaust Denier" differ substantively from that of a "Holocaust Revisionist"? I've asked these questions at the end of this Talk: page, but no-one has responded to them yet. Until you can identify a group of self-styled "Holocaust Deniers" whose views actually differ from self-styled "Holocause Revisionists", there is no reason for a separate article. Jayjg | (Talk) 22:10, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I responded to this in the relevant section that you mentioned. BSveen 00:15, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)

Holocaust hoax section

This section was contributed as a separate article, Holocaust hoax, by new user Krishkrish. I marked it to be merged with this article, and s/he subsequently moved the text here. I then replaced the hoax article with a redirect here and {{welcome}}d this user. There had been some NPOV phrasing issues with the text, which I explained to the user and noted here, and it's now been worded more neutrally. Kdau 16:05, 2004 Dec 19 (UTC)

Denier evidence from an unlikely source

This is taken from the Wikipedia entry for Dachau

"Due to the number of deaths and killings, the cremation facility had to be expanded, as the existing one was unable to keep up with the number of bodies to be disposed of."

The cremation chamber at Dachau could not keep up with the cremation of 30,000 people over 13 years, yet we are expected to believe the cremation chambers at Auschwitz and other "death camps" cremated 12 million in the space of 3 years?

I find that almost hysterical.

There's nothing funny about the gassing and cremation millions of people. Jayjg 19:11, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
There's even less funny about making it up and lying about it for 50 years.
The thing that isn't funny is people who know no history and claim events are "made up". For instance, 2004-1945 = 59, which I'd say is closer to 60, and if you can't do simple math, how can you understand History?
For our cremation doubter: Firstly, 12 million people weren't killed in the death camps and incinerated; less then 1/2 were murdered this way. Secondly, the cremation "chambers" couldn't keep up with murder, and bodies had to be burned en masse in open pits. Finally, could it be possible that a facility _designed_ for mass murder would have a greater capacity then a detention camp? 03:12 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Edit for opening section

If they're going to say in the opening section "Experts, witnesses, and historians universally regard Holocaust denial as untrue." then it's only fair to mention the fact that if you start to questistion the holocaust, you automatically cease to be an expert or a historian. Under this sort of climate, it's impossible to ever disprove or offer facts to the contrary of the Jewish version, because the fact you were doing it at all put you in disrepute.

I think the following paragraph I've written puts it clearly:

"To be fair, scholars and historians who are proponents of Holocaust denial or revisionism have generally been thrown into disrepute by those very beliefs, victims of relentless smear campaigns and often labelled Neo Nazis or anti-semitic without proof, thus creating a situation where their opinions, no matter how substantiated, are refuted merely by the fact they hold them."

If this is reverted I shall be very put out, because it's an extremely fair and relevant point to make.

Just as a contrast, if you were to apply the reverse to the holocaust survivors, who obviously have reasons to hate their Germans oppressors, then nothing they would say should be considered true either. Not to mention some of the more fanciful accounts of human lampshades and babies being thrown into fire pits or human soap, as well as those who've fabricated holocaust stories for profit, then these should throw all other accounts into disrepute.

It is simply not reasonable to apply this double standard here. Just because someone denies the holocaust doesn't mean they are a neo nazi, and just because someone is a neo nazi doesn't mean their beliefs are void. And just become some genuine anti-semites or neo-nazis deny the holocaust for no other reason than they hate jews, that doesn't mean that people like Mark Weber and David Irving are doing the same thing.

There are no "scholars and historians who are proponents of Holocaust denial"; the only one who was close was Irving, and he thrown into disrepute because he treated the historical material so poorly and often falsified it. As for the non-scholars and non-historians who promote Holocaust denial, their opinions have not been "substantiated"; on the contrary, they have been uniformly disproven. Jayjg | (Talk) 03:17, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Sigh... again NPOV is replaced by JPOV. Shame on you.
No, DPOV (Denial POV) is replaced by HPOV (Historical POV). Jayjg | (Talk) 00:34, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)