"Debating the Holocaust: A New Look At Both Sides", by Thomas Dalton -

This is a book about the Holocaust, and about two competing views of that event. On the one hand we have the traditional, orthodox view: the six million Jewish casualties, the gas chambers, the cremation ovens and mass graves. Traditional historians have thousands of surviving witnesses and the weight of history on their side. On the other hand there is a small, renegade band of writers and researchers who refuse to accept large parts of this story. These revisionists, as they call themselves, present counter-evidence and ask tough questions. They are beginning to outline a new and different narrative.

Thus there has emerged something of a debate of historic significance. This is no peripheral clash between two arcane schools of thought, regarding some minutiae of World War II. It is about history, of course, but it also speaks to fundamental issues of our time: freedom of speech and press, the operation of mass media, manipulation of public opinion, political and economic power structures, and the coercive abilities of the State. It is an astonishingly rancorous and controversial debate, with far-reaching implications.

Most of the reading public is only dimly aware of this debate, if at all. Everyone knows that six million Jews were killed by the Nazis, and that gas chambers were used in the killing. But few have any idea about the origins of this story, its rationale, and its justification. Fewer still know that serious questions have been raised against the traditional view; if they have heard of such questions, it is in the context of a few right-wing neo-Nazi anti-Semites who are trying to attack the Jews by questioning the Holocaust. And not more than a handful of people know about the serious issues raised by the revisionists, and the attempts by certain traditionalists to respond.

The fact that so few are aware of this Great Debate is perhaps not surprising. Much has been invested in the conventional story. Textbooks and encyclopedias have been written about it. Historians have staked their personal reputations on it. Politicians have passed laws defending it. And wealthy and powerful interests have good reason to sustain it. In short, very few of those in positions of influence want to acknowledge any kind of legitimate debate. There is no incentive to publicize it, and strong disincentive. Those in the public eye know that, should they broach this subject, they will suffer the consequences. Advertisers will drop out. Financial backers will disappear. They may be sued. They will lose access. They will be shunned. And it will all be legal.

Only a dramatic turn of events can force this debate into the public realm. Such a turn occurred in early 2006, when Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad announced that there would be a Holocaust conference in Teheran. The purpose would be to examine its scientific and technical basis with an eye to reinterpreting the facts. Reaction was rapid and fierce. Most called it a Holocaust denial conference, dismissing it as so much anti-Semitic raving. But Ahmadinejad followed through, and the conference was held in December of that year. The sky did not fall, and hoards of crazed lunatics did not rise up and slaughter Jews around the world. But the topic broke through the wall of silence; and more people now than ever suspect that all is not well with the traditional story hence the need for a book such as this.

ankh_f_n_khonsu wrote: Revisionists attack the orthodox history from a number of angles and many of their criticisms have not been adequately refuted.

worlock93 wrote:That's usually because revisionist prefer to ignore any evidence that refutes their claims and hinders their personal agenda.

Whitemaleseekingnothing wrote:Regardless of the actual facts (which seem to be up in the air), I think the lesson here is simple: History can be written however those holding the pens feel like. I can no more prove or disprove the holocaust than I could the existence of Plato. Ultimately, the "Facts" are heresay and almost always slanted towards whichever side is speaking at the moment.

Khephra wrote:I've often found it ironic to note how easily many become critical of the orthodox explanation for 9-11 (through an evaluation of the evidence), but seem incapable of revising their views of the Jewish Holocaust (through an evaluation of the evidence). Unfortunately, many place a great deal of confidence in assumptions and mistake propaganda for news. One obvious historical parallel is Pearl Harbor. We now know - unequivocally - that the US not only had prior warning, but actually let the attack take place in order to garner public support for their agenda. In light of ample historical precedent, the extreme taboo placed on this topic seems telling...

It took me until a couple of years ago to realize that our conditioning is so deep that when the programmed individual is asked to consider what evidence exists for gas chambers, what the programmed individual hears is, “No Jews were killed by the Nazis”. That’s exactly how the programming is supposed to work. It makes possible the use of the term ‘Holocaust denier’ to keep the unconditioned sheep out of the fold.

In High American Culture of the 21st Century, there’s few greater curses thrown than that of “Holocaust Denier”. It’s gotten people deported and jailed in foreign countries while multi-billion ripoff artists are sentenced to their mansions.

This conditioning is often protected through an emotional reaction. Many people get downright angry when gas chambers and evidence are brought up in the same sentence. We see this same reaction in people that have an overarching attachment to religious or political systems also. It’s not a rational, reasoned reaction to a rational, reasonable request. For others, the reaction is one of apathy. Apathy protects the conditioning by ensuring that the source of the conditioning won’t be examined and thus, the conditioning remains.

This Holocaust conditioning is the vicegrip of a perception that lends itself to much evil being allowed to happen. By at least examining what one thinks one does or doesn’t know about the Holocaust, that grip is broken just a little bit and perception can be allowed to change rather than dictated to.