Mark Weber
Professor Norman Geras, the Professor Emeritus of Government at the University of Manchester, has linked his blog readers to an intriguing story about the coterie of neo-Nazi cranks and fraudsters who populate the so-called “Institute of Historical Review”. The Director of this “Institute”, Mark Weber, has been forced to admit that thirty years of Holocaust Denial have ended in failure.
Holocaust denial is not new: this disgusting phenomenon can be traced back to 1974, with the output of the French pseudo-scholar Robert Faurisson. Yet thirty years on, Weber has posted an article on his site bemoaning the fact that sustained attempts by himself and other far-right sympathisers to “debunk” the Final Solution and to cast doubt on the historical record of Nazi Germany’s campaign of genocide against European Jews have got nowhere.
Weber whines that “[it’s] been almost 30 years, and Holocaust revisionism has gotten almost no support in academic circles or society at large”, and he attributes this outcome to the malevolent influence of “Jewish-Zionist power” over academic and public opinion in North America and the West in general. The fact that Holocaust deniers have failed because they are incompetent hacks whose rantings about the Shoah are generally recognised as historically illiterate, intellectually dishonest and factually unsound seems to have escaped him.
Weber notes that the cause of Holocaust denial has “gotten some support in Iran, or places like that, but as far as I know, there is no history department supporting writing by these folks”. The reference to Iran is interesting. This country currently has the misfortune to have Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as President, a man who embarrassed his own countrymen by hosting the International Conference to Review the Global Vision of the Holocaust in December 2006. The conference included such charmers as Faurisson, David Duke and Frederick Toben.
Funnily enough, the only individual uninvited from the conference was an Israeli Arab lawyer, Khaled Kasab Mahameed, the founder of the Arab Institute for Holocaust Research and Education. Mahameed was the only speaker at the conference who proposed to tell his listeners that the Holocaust was a historical fact, and that claims that it did not take place were academically unsound. Holocaust deniers who loudly proclaim that their rights to free speech are being eroded by Western governments were strangely unwilling to lobby President Ahmadinejad to have Mr Mahameed’s invitation renewed.
It is also interesting to see where Holocaust denial still possesses some credibility. The deniers’ efforts to push their claims in democratic countries where the rights to free speech and a free press are protected by law have resulted in abject failure. They have, however, managed to gain an audience in a country where peaceful political dissent is brutally suppressed, where journalists who embarrass the government are murdered in police custody and where state-sanctioned racism towards ethnic minorities is rife. Holocaust deniers survive by pandering to petty despots like Ahmadinejad, but no one in their own countries will touch them with a bargepole. How appropriate is that?
Click here to sign up for free RSS updates.
Download the free 
Join 
54 responses
“The deniers’ efforts to push their claims in democratic countries where the rights to free speech and a free press are protected by law have resulted in abject failure”.
No; in France, Germany, Austria, Belgium and several other countries, revisionism is strictly forbidden. Why?Because its arguments are indeed quite compelling.
To make acquaintance with these, please see: http://codoh.com/viewpoints/vprfvict.html.
Presented in Iran, yes. But banned by law in the above-named places.
If the arguments of Holocaust Deniers are so ‘compelling’, Fabien, then why have they acquired no traction in countries that do not have laws banning Holocaust Denial and (in Germany and Austria) neo-Nazi propaganda? What’s stopping the deniers spread their ‘message’ in the UK, USA, Canada, Australia and other similar countries. Could it be because they’re lying through their teeth, and everyone from academic historians like myself to the man in the street can see through them?
Incidentally, anyone who follows ‘Fabien’s link will be introduced to a website where assorted scumbags congregate to mock the victims of mass murder. You’ll need a strong stomach if you access it.
Stop welshing, Welch, with abusive language. Happily, you’re your own reader so far.
Not for me to psychoanalyse entire countries; that said, free America is also stupid America. And in England, there’s been next to no effort. Both of them, along with Russia, are beneficiaries of 1945, at least politically, and their establishments and hangers-on (academics among them) have little motivation to revise the official line they laid down in ‘45.
As for straight talk, without insults and the like:
Give us the proof, for example, of one gassing’s being carried out, and the name of one verified victim.
I’m sorry to offend you, Fabien. I’ve just got a short fuse when it comes to sick little bastards who tell lies about genocide. But then I suppose that’s what makes me a member of the human race, rather than a sewer rat like yourself.
I suppose if you really wanted ‘proof’, you could read the testimony of perpetrators like Rodolf Hoess at their trials:
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1946Hoess.html
Or you could read the recollections of survivors from Primo Levi to Pierre Berg. Or even better, you’d perhaps go to see for yourself what happened in cesspits like Auschwitz-Birkenau:
But you won’t do this, because you’re a twisted little scumbag. Just like all the other ‘deniers’, you’ll spin your ‘theories’ out of fragments of the past and get a belt out of mocking the dead. There are forms of faecal matter with more claim to be human than you are.
Labeling these morons “far-right” shows a complete ignorance of their agenda. The “far-right” label was, and is, a Stalinist artifact. Those on the “right” in a constitutional democracy seek to preserve that form of government. They would be more aptly described as “classical liberals”.
‘They would be more aptly described as “classical liberals”.’
Robert Faurisson and David Irving are ‘classical liberals’? On which planet?
sorry, Joseph Welch, though I am quite delighted that Holocaust revisionism has utterly failed, I must say Canada does strictly outlaw denial of the Jewish genocide.
That’s not to say that I agree with the ban, it’s just a fact.
Thank you for the correction, Wayne. I wasn’t aware of that.
Unfortunately, these kind of arguments rapidly polarise people into a Nazi vs The Jews argument, and it often seems forgotten that gays, Christians, disabled people, the gypsies/Romany and numerous other ethnic groups were subject to the same kind of barbarism by the Nazi regime.
The Nazi’s obsession with eradicating the Untermensch, the eugenics, the anti-semitism, the anti-slavism and numerous other examples of a belief in racial superiority and widespread death camp program just reinforces what scum these degenerate psychopaths really were.
How anyone can say there was no murder group is beyond me. Clearly they have not read of the Einsatzgruppen.
Believe me, if we did not fight and destroy the Nazi scum back in 1945, we would all probably be speaking German now.
I do not personally think that criminalising holocaust denial is good idea as it could give the impression to HD supporters that there is something to their ideas.
I get the feeling that in 30 years, the middle aged men who once made “Loose Change” will be ranting about how 9/11 denial never gained any traction because it was suppressed by the NWO, or something, instead of it being as fraudulent as holocaust denial.
*Unfortunately, these kind of arguments rapidly polarise people into a Nazi vs The Jews argument, and it often seems forgotten that gays, Christians, disabled people, the gypsies/Romany and numerous other ethnic groups were subject to the same kind of barbarism by the Nazi regime.*
Holocaust denial is a way of `normalizing’ Nazism.
If, somehow, the deliberate slaughter of six millions Jews (and as Rich points out) 10 million others deemed undesirable and unfit, then National Socialism can be rehabilitated to stand among contemporary political ideologies (that is the hope at least).
A play written some years ago, called `Ilsa the Concentration Camp Guard’ (or something to that effect), satirized contemporary Holocaust denial. It’s about a Canadian H. denier who is, one evening (`Christmas Carol’ style) visiting by Ilsa, the spirit of the concentration camp guard.
Except, Ilsa is horrified that the denier (based on a real Alberta teacher who taught this garbage to his high school class) would ever deny the Holocaust, for it was the greatest of the Nazis achievements!
Indeed.
sorry - should have read:
If, somehow, the deliberate slaughter of six millions Jews (and as Rich points out) 10 million others deemed undesirable and unfit, can be erased from memory, then National Socialism can be rehabilitated to stand among contemporary political ideologies (that is the hope at least).
“Robert Faurisson and David Irving are ‘classical liberals’? On which planet?”
Nice try, but I wasn’t referring to the holocaust deniers. They would be appropriately defined as socialists.
It is the right, in Canada and the U.S., that espouse classical liberal values.
Rich’s comments are very sensible, and I would concur that any study of Nazi Germany’s dismal record has to take into account all aspects of its barbarity (towards Roma, Poles, Russians, Ukrainians, homosexuals etc).
When I worked in Poland in 1994 I made a point of visiting Auschwitz, but I also managed to visit Zamosc too - which was where thousands of Poles were ethnically cleansed by the Nazis in order to make room for German colonists. Visitors to Warsaw can see the Ghetto Memorial, but also the Pawiak (the Gestapo prison) and the monument to the 1944 rising (although in the latter case the Poles were the victims of both Nazi brutality and Soviet cynicism).
The fact that Holocaust Deniers seek to ‘debunk’ the Shoah (without even discussing the campaign to exterminate the Roma, or the T4 programme, for example) really shows that at the end of the day they have an unhealthy fixation with Jews, and with seeking to deligitimise their status. It has nothing whatsoever to do with scholarship.
This book is a good source as a starting point, and is edited by reputable historians (rather than the scum that congregate around CODOH):
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Nazism-1919-1945-Three-Extermination-Documentary/dp/0859896021/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1232621444&sr=1-1
As for the question of being ‘classically liberal’, I will say quite frankly that I do not believe that Holocaust Deniers should be subjected to restrictions on their rights to free speech (although I understand the reasons why Germany and Austria have such laws). Such legislation allows the Deniers the excuse that they are being persecuted. So in my country (the UK) and in others I think that they have the right to write and speak as they see fit - even though they insult the memory of Nazism’s victories; in turn, proper historians have the right to turn round and point out their distortions and deceitful efforts to hide the truth of Nazi Genocide. David Irving unfortunately did not recognise this point when he brought his ill-advised - and ultimately (for him) disastrous - libel action against Deborah Lipstadt eight years ago.
I have also noted the fact that Deniers who squeal about ‘freedom of speech’ can only find succour and support for a regime which systematically denies this right to its own people.
Hoess’s testimony (20 or more victims per sq. metre in the “gas chamber”) cited as substantiation. What a joke! You ought to have learnt how to read before writing.
That said, such is the level of the official version, that of the Soviet “Liberators” and the other noble Allies (world destroyers in reality).
Coming from some brownshirted scumbag who spends his time burning books rather than reading them, that takes the biscuit.
Crawl back into your sewer, you Nazi trash.
Fabien you really are one of the lowest forms of life on earth. Deniers are the biggest jokes in the world. Mountians of evidence to prove them wrong? They claim its fake or inaccurate or out right lies (why someone of trial would make it up is a little odd)
I have no feelings for these people. People who dont seem to care that if they had lived in these times if could of very well been them in those gas chambers
‘People who dont seem to care that if they had lived in these times if could of very well been them in those gas chambers’
Fabien’s kind were the ones who built and run these death camps in the first place.
You folks do realized that the Soviets slaughtered an estimated 20-25 million of their own people (native Russians, Ukrainians, Estonians, Poles, Chechnians, Germans, Jews, Hungarians, Romanians, Bulgarians, Finns, etc.), and the Soviet Union is a so-called “Ally” of the Allied powers who supposed purport to upheld a “Free World” for “Demo[n]cracy.” Hitlers’ camps killed an estimated 3-5 Jews (I’ve heard variants of these figures) and an estimated number of Catholics, Protestants, Gypsies, Slavs, Sodomites, Mentally & Physically handicapped, and other such “undesirables,” of whom, Hitler deemed needed to be “euthanized” (funny word, eh?—it means, “Good-Death” in Greek, I wonder how Euthanasia-Supports can justify themselves now—-they cannot do so without utilizing the Same logical and rationalizing reasoning as the National Socialists or the Soviets who both would either roast, work to death, execute, or otherwise murder millions of their Undesirables and political Opponents. It just goes to show one of the inhumanity of the Socialists’ whether “National Socialist ” or otherwise, that they will justify or use an means in which to exterminate their opponents, to silence them or enslave them. And it shows that Democracies and the so-called “Free World” will go through any means to exterminate their enemies even if it means supporting an “ally” that massacres fives or six times the amount of people as one’s supposed “enemy,” and thus they can safely “justify” and proclaim the triumph of “Democracy” over “National Socialist,” even if they support the worst evil of aiding and abetting (in the mass-slaughter of approx. 20 Million folks in the Soviet Union by giving them aid, food, supplies, and money) in the slaughter of a greater amount of people then National Socialist ever executed or slaughtered.
Well, that was a rather long and incontinent rant. I’m sure there was a point to it somewhere.
Thank you for ‘educating’ me about the evils of Communism, ‘Conservative Monarchist’. I teach history at the graduate level, so I don’t think there’s very much you can tell me about Stalin. And let me assure you that my contempt for anyone who tries to whitewash him is as equal as it is for those who try and deny the historical reality of the Shoah.
Of note: the above post requires amendation, It should have read in part thusly: “Hitlers’ regime killed only about 2.9 millions Jewish persons in the CAMPS……..[with]….approximately 1.5-2 million Jews killed in otherwise.” so the total Number of Jews killed during the war would be with the camps and those executed otherwise should read approx. 4.5 to 5.5 million killed with the average figure being either 5 or 5.1million.
Mr. Welch, I’m sure that you are in fact highly educated, and respect that. I points of first post wasn’t to rant an incoherent manner, (though, I should do better to utilize paragraph formatting.) rather to help others, other than yourself, who would be wont to white-wash the “Allied” Side as inculpable of any guilt on their part.
I however, merely wished to illustrate for the other posters here, that in addition to the 10-11 million killed by Germans through their killings (half-Jewish/half-”Gentile”); that the Allies were not help to be inculpable, for it is well-documented of the vast amounts of person executed and exterminated by the Communist-Stalinist regimes, which number between 20-25 millions.
This was done in order to ensure that a one-sided argument was not slanted perpetually against the National Socialist, whilst ignoring the greater- (and equally as heinous) crimes of the Communists in Eastern Europe during the 1933-1945 period.
‘Conservative Monarchist’, I’d be grateful if you could tell me where in my post or in my comments I indicated that the Allies (notably the Soviets) were lily-white. For example, if you read my comments above on the Warsaw Rising, you’d see that I attribute that tragedy both to the barbarism of Nazi Germany, not to mention Soviet cynicism in letting the AK and the citizens of Warsaw get wiped out.
Joseph Welch and Wayne Whig:
Canada has laws against libel and hate crimes that could potentially cover Holocaust denial, but it has no law against Holocaust denial specifically.
Wikipedia lists the countries that explicitly ban Holocaust denial: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_against_Holocaust_denial
Personally I think even Canadian law goes too far. Holocaust denial can fail perfectly well on its own; it does not need the law to help it.
“Robert Faurisson and David Irving are ‘classical liberals’? On which planet?”
Noam Chomsky, in Some Elementary Comments on the Rights of Freedom of Expression:
“Is it true that Faurisson is an anti-Semite or a neo-Nazi? As noted earlier, I do not know his work very well. But from what I have read — largely as a result of the nature of the attacks on him — I find no evidence to support either conclusion. Nor do I find credible evidence in the material that I have read concerning him, either in the public record or in private correspondence. As far as I can determine, he is a relatively apolitical liberal of some sort.”
I’m not certain if Chomsky is using “liberal” in the American sense of “advocate of equality, liberty, and institutional transparency” or “liberal” in the sense of “market economies with some government interference.” But apparently somebody at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology thinks so.
That said, I think that Chomsky is largely responsible for making it fashionable for the segment of the far-left that wasn’t on board with Leninism to dip their toes into soft-core Holocaust denial.
There is a lot of evidence located in the International Tracing Service archives at Bad Arolsen.
16 miles of shelves holding the stories of 17 million victims – not only Jews, but slave laborers, political prisoners and homosexuals.
This archive has been kept secret, and not opened to historians since the war. It has only been opened in the past year or so.
It might take time, but all the evidence for the holocaust is there, and will be revealed.
You mean Holocaust “Revisionism” is going down the tubes?
And here I was, thinking all the time that it had never left the gutter.
Conservative Monarchist, I can see where you’re coming from. I agree that if we’re using a strictly quantative analysis of murder victims re Hitler vs Stalin, then Stalin is without doubt the bigger monster.
There is a strong case for retaining a covert assassinations unit for disposing of such people before they solidfy their power and establish state murder projects. Unfortunately our history shows that the strong armed pro-western thug trumps the democratically elected liberal lefty almost every time.
Buck, thanks for sharing the info about Bad Arolsen. Personally, I think the current public domain evidence for the Nazi industrial death program is overwhelming but I will be very interested to read about any new material.
Has anyone here read David Irving’s books? What are his sources for his evidence? I haven’t and although I reject any attempts to rehabiliate Nazism, I am prepared to defend his right to hold such outrageous opinions and to publish them. There should be no penalty in law for holding such bizarre opinions. Public discussion and scrutiny of such works are the best avenue for exposing any ideologically-driven attempts to rework history.
fabien Your link is bunk
here is another link;
http://www.fpp.co.uk/Legal/Penguin/transcripts/day032.htm
Take your time, read the whole trial. It become clear very quickly, that the guy on trial knew the truth and lied by ommission and mis-translation, but he knew.
the whole trial
http://www.fpp.co.uk/Legal/Penguin/transcripts/text_index.html
I used to WORK with people who had camp-tattoos on their wrists.
The Shoah happened.
Get used to the horror.
Rich, when you ask ” What are [David Irving's] sources for his evidence?” you’re committing a category error. He sued Penguin Books (the publishers of Deborah Lipstadt’s book Denying the Holocaust) for alleging that he had concealed the truth and suggested falsehoods. He lost the case - remember, this one was brought by David Irving with a view to silencing his critics - and the judge ruled that “Irving has for his own ideological reasons persistently and deliberately misrepresented and manipulated historical evidence”. So it’s not a case of someone relying on contradicted or overlooked evidence to build a case: David Irving’s case was built on lies. The most important source overall, whatever may have been in his footnotes, was his his imagination and his pathological hatred of Jews.
Let’s see now: The Soviets murdered many people, they grabbed Auschwitz from the Nazis, therefore there was no Holocaust. Did I get that right?
The fact is, we fried the nazis at Nuremburg with their own documents. The nazi fetish for efficiency produced literally tons of evidence of the holocaust, and they would have been condemned by their own words even if there had been no survivors at all.
Weber, Irving, and the rest of that happy little band of liars have discovered something that Goebbels knew, which is that for the “big lie” technique to work, you have to have a monopoly on mass communication. The holocaust is a fact, just like the other attempts at genocides that various tyrants perpetrated during the 20th century.
“Holocaust denial is a way of `normalizing’ Nazism.”
Precisely. Holocaust deniers are accessories after the fact to the murders, and they are actively working to get another shot at it. When someone denies the holocaust, their statements should be taken as a declaration of an intent to commit murder.
The holocaust might have happened. But I’ll say it did not just to make the jews cry.
Making jews cry and hurting their wittle fewlings is a crime in Canada and Europe. Jews and their “hate speech” laws are unbecoming of a male and gives credence to the long-held anti-semitic belief that jews are nebbish untermench who don’t fight their battles like men; but instead are a weak paracitic caste who haven’t earned their status as today’s wealthy and noblity. (which in previous saner eras was only earned by taking up the sword for your country) We are fighting in Iraq, not to protect American land and women but to save the effite Israeli males. I emplore all American soldiers to quit the war effort or risk looking like a pheg.
That’s plenty reason for “denying the holocaust”, let the poor “poisecuted” banker class cry. Boo hoo!
I could care less whether or not holocaust denial is rational or not.
I look after my interests as a white male gentile and from that do I base what is the truth.
The holocaust fiction is anti-white-male and anti-gentile, it is not in my interest to believe in it. So I simply will not.
Other races do this all the time (example to clarify: “people of color” who blame clearly indigenous African barbarity as a “legacy of colonialism”), time for whites to stop thinking about objectivity and pure truth, when it will never be viewed as more than white lies by those not white and not gentile, and it does us no good to believe in other races “truths”, let us be like Muslims or those Black Israelites/Egyptian UFO cultists: have our own truth. Funny how only whitey is the only one called out and vilified for forming a subjective truth to suit his own needs, only of whitey: “There are forms of faecal matter with more claim to be human than you are.” Hey, Jew or neocon “Noachide Shabbos Goy”:, your hate above is based on need, that you can’t have us descend like the other races into our own truth. Africa and China do not face demographic crisises, because they believe what suits them; whites too should seek this convenience.
Well, that’s all news to me. Before I read ‘neoconsarecommies’ I wasn’t aware that 6 million Jews from all over Europe; 3 million Poles; up to 20 million Russians, Ukrainians and Belarussians; and countless other victims of Nazism weren’t white. The things you learn from racist cretins …
neoholocaustdeniersarenazis, I understand your sadness that your side lost WW2.
Just remember that on May 7, 1945, your side surrendered, unconditionally to the US, UK and Soviet Union - a bunch of “white guys”..
WW2 might have ended sooner if your furher had the nerve to enter into his first marriage sooner.
The same pukes who stand for “revisionism” are the same nutjobs who root against Israel or for al Qaeda. They are also the same leftwing loons who believe that Bush was behind 9/11, or who cheer for Iran to get a nuke. And the same ones who voted for Obama, the Empty Suit.
I can see why “neoconsarecommies” wants to injure Jews or “make them cry.”
He/she/it is still upset that their father lost his job as a guard at Bergen-Belsen.
Being a Nazi does suck, doesn’t it, a$$hole?
I find it sad that the Pope has appeared to legitimise holocaust denial by rehabilitating Bishop Richard Williamson.
The horror of the holocaust is the one thing that makes Naziism completely unacceptable to people. Remove the holocaust and the extreme right looks more acceptable.
This is why every denier I’ve ever come across is a Nazi sympathiser.
neoconsarecommies - the barbarity that occurred in places like Rwanda and continues today in Zimbabwe is nothing to do with European colonialism but the corrupt and sadistic leadership that exists in those countries. This is nothing, imo, to do with the colour of their skin but the cyclical human traits of brutality to other men. Hitler was white but he certainly was not some enlighted uberman was he? No, he was scum and should have been assassinated by MI6 in 1933.
BTW, if anyone doubts that the Nazi ideology is still alive and kicking in the USA, please visit http://www.stormfront.org/forum/
These people don’t seem to realise that they probably wouldn’t be exercising their free speech on an uncensored forum had the Nazi’s won WW2. Their idolatry of Hitler makes me sick.
“…instead are a weak paracitic caste who haven’t earned their status as today’s wealthy and noblity. (which in previous saner eras was only earned by taking up the sword for your country) We are fighting in Iraq, not to protect American land and women but to save the effite Israeli males. I emplore all American soldiers to quit the war effort or risk looking like a pheg.”
Oh, I wonder what would happen if some of the more hardy members of the Israeli Defence Force met up with `conservative monarchist’…
In fact, I’m in not uncertain as to who would be considred the panty-waist wimp
That’s plenty reason for “denying the holocaust”, let the poor “poisecuted” banker class cry. Boo hoo!
whoops sorry, misidentified poster -
`neoconsarecommies’ I meant to say, not `conservative monarchist’
To the various denier scum: a member of my own family was murdered in Dachau. When I grew up in Milan in the sixties, the memories of two hideous years of Nazi occupation, the raids, the murder, the torture, the abductions, were palpable, to the point where the locals openly hated Germans as such. Nazism was mass murder, and killed wherever it went. Period.
I have 100% undeniable proof that the Holocaust is real. My grandfather fought in General Patton’s army. When they overran a concentration camp, he was one of the first in. He has pictures he took on his own camera of all of the bodies and emaciated people. He said when they first arrived, the Germans were still driving the bulldozer to try to bury the piles of dead. He saw the ovens still spewing smoke. He’s almost 90 years old, but on the rare occasions he speaks of it he breaks down in tears. Try telling me its not true when i’ve seen the photos. Try telling him it wasn’t true when he was there to see how disgusting the Nazis really were.
Chuck, I don’t think any person who has posted here denies that Jews and other groups were targeted and were murdered during those years. They do resent Jews. But their “Holocaust Denial” mostly deals with HOW persons died. A holocaust is a burning by fire. The Jews and devout Catholics and others were murdered with firearms and various methods like lethal injection. Most apparently died of starvation and typhus in the camps where they were imprisoned–like Anne Frank and her sister. This is why there are “Holocaust survivors” to tell the stories. The “ovens” were largely de-lousing chambers for prisoners. There could have been no consensus by Nazis to decimate the Jewish Semitic race or they would have done it quickly and efficiently. “Holocaust deniers” get caught up in trying to prove there were no gas chambers though you’ll observe that most of them have little charity and they will not acknowledge suffering in other ways.
My uncle was an army security guard posted at Nuremberg trials. He spoke of inhuman actions described by witnesses at the trials. One related to me was the story of a Nazi who tortured a woman by having her legs tied together when it was time for childbirth — a slow death for mother and unborn child.
Hitler’s name comes up during exorcisms. He’s likely in the eternal fires of Hell. Speaking of Hell, you’ll find that most folks in these groups don’t believe; the “Holocaust denial” movement is their religion.
Dear Friends,
Let’s examine the amount of donations the IHR/Mark Weber received from the revisionist/patriot community, and then ask this question: Is the revisionist/patriot community getting a good return on their money?
For said years, the IHR/Mark Weber took in the following in “Contributions, Gifts, Grants, And Similar Amounts Received: Direct Public Support.”
Tax Year 2000–$346, 572
Tax Year 2001—$209, 229
Tax Year 2002—$610, 152
Tax Year 2003–$210, 363
Tax Year 2005–$409, 477
Tax Year 2006–$299, 623
Now, this adds up to be $2,085,416. That is to say, the IHR/Mark Weber took in $2,085,416 in donations from the Revisionist/patriot community for these six tax years. Have we, in turn, received a good return on our money????
I say, Hell no!!! Mark Weber destroyed the Journal of Historical Review, the yearly IHR conferences, the IHR’s book publishing arm, and the IHR newsletter. He even refuses to sponsor a weekly Radio talk show!
What does Mark Weber/IHR do to deserve $2,085,416 from the Revisionist/patriot community???? Well, he sends out newspaper clippings to one thousand people or less. He sells a bunch of old books and DVDs, many of which are decades old. He attempts to market the works of others like Kevin MacDonald and Pat Buchanan–books that can be obtained cheaper elsewhere. And finally, every once in a great while Weber writes a short essay or gives a short speech.
In my opinion, this is madness!!!! The $2,085,416 is a horrendous waste of money!! I can think of far more productive ways to utilize this money than to send it to Mark Weber.
Unfortunately, Mark has proven himself to be a horrible leader and Director. He led the charge to destroy Willis Carto’s Liberty Lobby and the Spotlight, and took in about one million dollars to boot? And what does he have to show for it? Absolutely nothing!!
Mark Weber destroyed the Journal of Historical Review, the IHR’s book publishing arm, the yearly IHR conferences, and the IHR’s newsletter. And what has Mark Weber given us in return?? Well, he sends out newspaper clippings to a thousand people or less.
Weber has very little business acumen, as “his” IHR is forever teetering on the brink of financial disaster, despite the fact that he beat Carto in court and took in one million dollars. Contrast Weber’s poor record with that of his hated enemy, Willis Carto. Carto lost his home, his Liberty Lobby and Spotlight, but he bounced back and went on to create the American Free Press and The Barnes Review, etc.
People who have been in a position to observe Mark Weber first hand, like former IHR editor Ted O’Keefe and former IHR employee Ken Usher, will tell you that he has an inability to get his work done. Indeed, this character trait has plagued much of his career. He was supposed to write a very important book, The Final Solution: Legend and Reality. Vintage Weber–he never finished the book. Brilliant procrastinator that he is, Mark can always concoct a convenient excuse as to why it is not his fault that he never published this important book.
In a six year period, Mark Weber/the IHR took in a whopping $2,085,416!! And he has next to nothing to show for it. He is wasting Our Revisionist/patriot money. His web site basically consists of a bunch of newspaper clippings, old issues of the now-defunct Journal of Historical Review, and he attempts to sell very old books or other people’s books (books that can be easily obtained elsewhere). Every once in a great while, he gives a short speech or writes an essay. His main duty appears to be to send out newspaper clippings to about one thousand people. This is foolish waste of the large sums of money that Weber is taking in from the revisionist/patriot community and things have to change.
One of the most important functions of a “political/historical think-tank” like the IHR is to “keep current.” That is to say, to provide new and original scholarly material on political and historical issues. Mark Weber’s IHR virtually does none of this.
Please keep in mind Mark Weber’s battle cry, which he conveniently used when he was fighting Carto: “The IHR does not belong to one man. It belongs to all of us, because without all of us it would not exist.” Ergo, we all have a right to join in the attempt to improve the IHR.
In a best-case scenario, I believe our goal should be to get Mark Weber to be more productive. This would be in the best interests of himself and the entire movement. Specifically, he should re-start the Journal of Historical Review, and he should host a weekly Internet Radio broadcast.
But I hold no illusions about Mark. He wants to do the least amount of work and to continue to collect a paycheck for so doing. He is as stubborn as a mule, and there is probably nothing that can be done to make him more productive. This being so, he should resign from the IHR.
But, once again, I hold no illusions about this either. Mark Weber has a tighter grip on the IHR than Willis Carto ever did. He is not going to give up his control of the IHR, and thus, it will probably go bankrupt in the near future. It cannot go on like it is in this present non–productive condition.
Paul Grubach
The astounding lack of proof, undeniable implausibility, constant attempts to suppress historical research and overwhelming sympathetic media attention that dominates public scrutiny would seem like good reason alone to start asking ones self serious questions about the holocaust. Not to mention the benefits…it’s been 60 years and now a brutal, racist Zionist government runs a country given to it as reparations and still uses the holocaust as an excuse to slaughter and displace the original inhabitants of Israel and Gaza without consequence.
So please…if you feel passionately about the holocaust at least keep your comments to facts and not insults.
Joseff, it may have escaped your attention, but there is only one side in this ‘debate’ who demonstrate an ‘astounding lack of proof’, ‘undeniable implausibility’, and show ‘constant attempts to suppress historical research’, and that is Weber, Irving, Carto and their type. That’s why Irving’s libel action against Lipstadt in 2001 was a disaster for the former.
In case you need a reminder, this is what real historians have on their side:
• The demographic disappearance of up to 6 million European Jews between 1939-1945 - many of whom had relatives who made it to safety (to Britain, the Commonwealth, the USA, Palestine or other countries unoccupied by the Nazis during WWII), and who could testify to the fact that their loved ones vanished off the face of the earth.
• The testimony of those lucky enough to survive the death camps. Not to mention witnesses to Einsatzgruppen killings:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/a-holy-mission-to-reveal-the-truth-about-nazi-death-squads-1690595.html
• The testimony of guilty Nazi officials (e.g. Adolf Eichmann, Franz Stangl, Paul Blobel, Rudolf Hoess etc) put on trial by the British, American, Soviet, West German, Polish, Czechoslovak and Israeli governments. In addition to this there is the testimony of minor SS participants such as Hans Munch, Josef Klehr, Walter Burmeister, Oskar Groning etc.
• The testimony of witnesses - notably those of the Polish Home Army, the Armija Krajowa (AK), who reported on the genocidal campaign against Jews in Poland during the German occupation, and passed their reports on to the Free Polish government in London.
• German written reports produced as evidence for the International Military Tribunals at Nuremberg, also subsequent trials (e.g. the Einsatzgruppen trial of 1948-1951).
• The collection of Himmler’s radio messages to his subordinates held by the US Holocaust Museum. German military operational situation reports on Barbarossa, held at Yad Vashem.
• The mass of documents held by the German Military Archives at Freiburg, not to mention the Institute for Contemporary History (Institut fur Zeitgeschichte) in Munich and the Research Centre for the History of National Socialism in Hamburg (Forschungsstelle fur die Geschichte des Nationalsozialismus). We can also include decrypted radio traffic on the Final Solution picked up by the US and British signals intelligence services (notably the Hoefle telegram reporting on the ‘progress’ of Operation Reinhard throughout 1942).
This is the evidence that you have - one discredited analysis of the Auschwitz gas chambers by an amateur with no training in chemistry or toxicology (http://www.shamash.org/holocaust/denial/answers.txt), and one supposed ‘radar survey’ of the sites at Treblinka and Belzec, which even a premium scumbag like Frederick Toben is too embarrassed to present as ‘evidence’. And that’s it.
‘[If] you feel passionately about the holocaust at least keep your comments to facts and not insults’.
That’s advice that I would suggest you follow yourself.
I used to work at Mill Point the headquarters of the National Alliance. I left the group and now devote my life to Jesus. I can confirm that Mark Weber is a National Alliance lifetime member, I saw his name on the membership mailing list.
joseph welch can prettfy well pop off as he wants. He has the whole Western political and social establishment on his side, all of which, of course, is under the spell of international jewry. Mark Weber admits, as must all who have even a modicum of historical knowledge, that many Jews died and were killed during WWII. What he has “admitted” or what he has given up, is the approach that he and other revisionists have taken towards the Holocaust denial over the years. It has not worked. Revisionists have tried unsuccessfully to debunk the major holocaust thesis, viz. that 6 million jews were deliberately slaughtered by the Nazis and that most of that slaughter occured in concentration camps by sytematic, industrialized gassing. That’s a lie. There were no gas chambers ,or much, if any other, elaborately devised execution machinery in place. Weber, as the article might suggest, is not conceding the argument upon allegedly maturerer reflection. No, He is simply saying that the classical revisionist methodology has not worked for basically two reasons 1) Plenty of jews did, in fact, lose their lives because of nazi brutality and ill treatment, and it is difficult to separate the fact of that loss of life from the methods by which it was carried out. 2) Organized jewry is too powerful for revisionists to hope to overcome romantic, entrenched holocaust myths with classical scholarly methods and proofs assembled from huge quantities of data. The myth must survive. The jews must be seen as unique in every way, even the methods by which they die. The ‘holocaust industry’ can not prosper unless the jews are singled out by history as the primary victims of the war and the most cruelly treated ethnicity. As David ben Gurion said: Catastrophe is power.
I have to believe that Welch, for all of the foul and abusive language that he uses against the holocaust denying “scum,” is himself not a very reputable or admirable individual. He seems to me, potentially at least from all that he writes, to be as capable of violence and brutality as any nazi might have been.
What a wanker this guy is. He is one who perpetuate the LIES that keep everyone in the dark. There are lots of LIES about the Holocaust and the Zionists have been screaming and crying to hide this for so long now! Note, it is not “the Jews.” We must never become general and lump a whole people in with this. It is not “the Jews” - it is the ZIONISTS - a faction of the Jews. And THEY are the trouble makers who are behind this great 20th Century scam.
Old Almanacs Never Lie!
World Almanac, 1940, pg. 129: World Jewish Population — 15,319,359
World Almanac, 1941, pg. 510: World Jewish Population — 15,748,091
World Almanac, 1942, pg. 849: World Jewish Population — 15,192,089 (”Jews
include Jews by race not necessarily by religion”)
World Almanac USA, 1947, pg. 748: World Jewish Population — 15,690,000
World Almanac, 1949, pg. 289: World Jewish Population — 15,713,638
Statistical Handbook of Council of Churches USA