Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 61.122.255.34 (talk) at 02:36, 20 December 2005 (→Institute for Historical Review). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Holocaust denial refers to the claims that the Holocaust did not occur as it is defined by current mainstream historiography. It's supporters however, use the term Holocaust Revisionism and claim that they do not deny that the holocaust occurred, only that it did not occur as has been publicized in the mainstream media.

Key elements of Holocaust revisionism are the explicit or implicit claim that, in the Holocaust:

• The Nazi government did not have a policy of deliberately targeting the Jews and the Gypsies for extermination.
• That the claims of six million Jews and millions of others (including Gypsies, homosexuals, Jehovah's Witnesses) were systematically killed by the Nazis and their allies are fraudalent and unsupported by solid evidence.
• That there is no evidence of gas chambers being used in extermination camps to kill Jews.

In addition, most Holocaust revisionism implies, or openly states, that the current mainstream understanding of the Holocaust is the result of a deliberate conspiracy by pro-Zionist Jewish factions. For this reason, Holocaust Revisionism has been claimed to be an antisemitic conspiracy theory. Public Revisionism of the Holocaust has been made a criminal offense in Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Israel, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Slovakia and Switzerland, and is punishable by fines and jail sentences.

While Holocaust Revisionists insist they are bona fide historians (and some of them are in fact bona fide historians), some of their most prominent representatives have been accused in court to have a pattern of falsifying historical documents (e.g. David Irving) or deliberately misrepresenting historical data (e.g. Ernst Zündel). These include claims that Holocaust Revisionists are distorting, ignoring, or misusing historical records. Organizations such as the American Historical Association, the largest society of historians in the United States, have claimed that Holocaust Revisionism is "at best, a form of academic fraud."

Similarly, Public Opinion Quarterly, summarizing the work on the subject done by a range of historians including Jaroff, Lipstadt, Riech, Ryback, Shapiro, Vidal-Naquet, Weimann, and Winn concludes "No reputable historian questions the reality of the Holocaust, and those promoting Holocaust revisionist are overwhelmingly anti-Semites and/or neo-Nazis." (Vol. 59, p. 270) Holocaust Revisionists insist that they do not deny the Holocaust, preferring to be called "Holocaust revisionists". They are nevertheless commonly referred to as "Holocaust Revisionists" by their opponents due to the fact that they deny the veracity of the commonly publicized historical definition of the event.

Terminology: Holocaust revisionist or Holocaust revisionism?

The term "denier" is objected to by the people to whom it is applied, who prefer "revisionist". Most contend that the latter term is deliberately misleading. While historical revisionism is the re-examination of accepted history, with an eye towards updating it with newly discovered, more accurate, and less-biased information, "Revisionists" have been criticised for seeking evidence to support a preconceived theory, omitting substantial facts.

Broadly, historical revisionism is the approach that history as it has been traditionally told, may not be entirely accurate and should hence be revised accordingly. Historical revisionism in this sense is a well-accepted and mainstream part of history studies, and it is applied to the study of the Holocaust as new facts emerge and change our understanding of it.

Holocaust revisionists maintain that they apply proper revisionist principles to Holocaust history, and therefore the term Holocaust revisionism is appropriate for their point of view. Their critics, of course, disagree and prefer the term Holocaust revisionist. As Gordon McFee claimed in his essay Why Revisionism isn't:

"Revisionists" depart from the conclusion that the Holocaust did not occur and work backwards through the facts to adapt them to that preordained conclusion. Put another way, they reverse the proper methodology , thus turning the proper historical method of investigation and analysis on its head."

Beliefs of Holocaust Revisionists

Holocaust Revisionists make the following claims, though not all Holocaust Revisionists make all of the claims listed:

• Nazis did not use gas chambers to mass murder Jews. Small chambers did exist for delousing and Zyklon-B was used in this process. Dr. Franciszek Piper, senior curator and director of archives of the Auschwitz State Museum, has admitted on film that "Krema 1," the only alleged "homicidal gas chamber" on display to hundreds of thousands of tourists every year at Auschwitz, was built after the war by the Soviet Union. In 1948, three years after the war ended, formal Allied Commissions of Inquiry concluded that nobody died of poison gas at any of the German concentration camps. A conclusion also reached by modern engineering forensics expert Fred Leuchter after extensive examination of the grounds and buildings.  Leuchter lost his business, his job and his reputation simply for telling the truth about his engineering and chemical tests, many of which were repeated by Dr. Germar Rudolf, who confirmed Leuchter's results.
• Nazis did not use cremation ovens to dispose of extermination victims. The cremation ovens that existed would have been too small for this purpose, and the reason there were cremation ovens at all was they were put in to provide cremation services for the deaths from natural causes and disease epidemics that could reasonably be expected in a high-density work camp.
• The figure of 5-6 million Jewish deaths is an irresponsible exaggeration, and many Jews who actually emigrated to Russia, Britain, Palestine and the United States are included in the number. International Red Cross documents clearly show that fewer than 300,000 Jews died during WWII in all German concentration camps combined.
• Many photos and much of the film footage shown after World War II was specially manufactured as propaganda against the Nazis by the Allied forces. For example, one film, shown to Germans after the war, of supposed Holocaust victims were in fact German civilians being treated after Allied bombing of Dresden. Pictures we commonly see show victims of starvation or typhus, not of gassing.
• Claims of what the Nazis supposedly did to the Jews were all intended to facilitate the Allies in their intention to enable the creation of a Jewish homeland in Palestine, and are currently used to garner support for the policies of the state of Israel, especially in its dealings with the Palestinians.
• Historical proof for the Holocaust is falsified or deliberately misinterpreted.
• There is an American, British or Jewish conspiracy to make Jews look like victims and to demonize Germans. Also, it was in the Soviet interest to propagate wild stories about Germany in order to frighten related nations into accepting Soviet rule (Poland, Czechoslovakia, etc.). The amount of money pumped into Israel and reparations from Germany alone give Israel a strong incentive to maintain this conspiracy.
• The overwhelming number of biased academics and historians are too afraid to actually admit that the Holocaust was a fiction; they know they will lose their jobs if they speak up.
• In any event, the Holocaust pales in comparison to the number of dissidents and Christians killed in Soviet gulags, which Holocaust Revisionists usually attribute to Jews.

Additionally, two other common claims of Holocaust Revisionists are easily confused with the legitimate debate of functionalism versus intentionalism:

1. Although crimes were committed, they were not centrally orchestrated and thus the Nazi leadership bore no responsibility for the implementation of such a policy.

Documents such as the Wannsee Conference protocols, the Einsatzgruppen reports, and many other original materials have been used to claim that there was centralized planning and knowledge of the Holocaust by most upper echelons of the Nazi leadership. Historians however, continue to debate how widespread the knowledge of the Holocaust was in German society and government, and how the decisions to implement the Final Solution evolved, but the centrally-planned nature of the Holocaust, and the role of the Nazi leadership in its planning and execution.

2. There was no specific order by Adolf Hitler or other top Nazi officials to exterminate the Jews.

To date no such specific "Führerbefehl" has been found.

Opposition to Holocaust Revisionism examined

Much of the controversy surrounding the claims of Holocaust Revisionists centers upon the methods used to present arguments that the facts of the Holocaust have been misrepresented and distorted, and perhaps did not occur as represented by mainstream historians. Numerous accounts have been given (including evidence presented in court cases) of claimed "facts" and "evidence"; however, independent research by opponents has claimed these to be based upon flawed research, biased statements, and even deliberately falsified evidence. Opponents of Holocaust Revisionism have compiled detailed accounts of numerous instances where this evidence has been altered or manufactured (see Nizkor Project and David Irving).

As Holocaust Revisionism is not considered to be historical research by opposing scholars, there has been a substantial debate on the right way to respond to Revisionists. Since the contentions of Holocaust Revisionism -- that the Holocaust was not as it has been represented in the mainstream media -- are contradicted by opposing mainstream historians, many scholars worry that to debate Holocaust Revisionism is to make it appear a legitimate field of inquiry.

A second group of scholars, typified by Lipstadt, have tried to attack the methods and motivations of Holocaust Revisionism. Lipstadt explained her goals by claiming:

We need not waste time or effort answering the Revisionists' contentions. It would be never-ending to respond to arguments posed by those who freely falsify findings, quote out of context and simply dismiss reams of testimony. Unlike true scholars, they have little, if any, respect for data or evidence. Their commitment is to an ideology and their 'findings' are shaped to support it.

A third group, typified by the Nizkor Project, responds by confronting Holocaust Revisionism head-on, claiming to debunk the arguments and claims of Holocaust Revisionism groups.

Early examples

Opponents of Holocaust revisionism claim that the very first Holocaust Revisionists as the Nazis themselves. These historians claim to have documented evidence that Heinrich Himmler instructed his camp commandants to destroy records, crematoria and other signs of mass extermination of human beings, as Germany's defeat became imminent and the Nazi leaders realized they would most likely be captured and brought to trial. Following the end of World War II, many of the former leaders of the SS left Germany and began using their propaganda skills to defend their actions (or, their critics contended, to rewrite history). One of the first published revisionist works (though the word "revisionist" was not used to describe it) was Friedrich Meinecke's The German Catastrophe (1950), in which he offered a brief defense for the German people by blaming industrialists, bureaucrats and the Pan-German League for the outbreak of World War I and Hitler's rise to power. Meinecke was openly anti-Semitic; nonetheless, he was a respected historian. Another early proponent of Holocaust revisionism was Francis Parker Yockey, an American admirer of Hitler whose book Imperium, a purported "philosophy of history and politics" was claimed to be filled with anti-Semitic analysis, was published in 1962.

The case of Harry Elmer Barnes

Also eventually taking a Holocaust revisionist stance in the later years of his life was Harry Elmer Barnes. Barnes was a mainstream historian with liberal credentials. Between World War I and World War II, Barnes became well known as an anti-war writer and a leader in the historical revisionism movement. Following World War II, however, Barnes became convinced that allegations made against Germany and Japan to justify U.S. involvement in WWII were merely wartime propaganda that needed to be debunked. He began including the Holocaust in this category in his later writings. Barnes' anti-war and mainstream historical revisionist writings are still held in high regard by some libertarians. Following the example of Barnes, a few other early libertarian writers also concerned with anti-war historical revisionism began to take a Holocaust revisionist stance, including James J. Martin. Barnes' name has since been appropriated by some modern Holocaust Revisionists, most notably Willis Carto.

The beginnings of the modern movement

The beginnings of modern-day Holocaust revisionist are somewhat obscure. Public challenges to the historical accounts of the holocaust first began to appear in the 1960s, with French historian Paul Rassinier publishing The Drama of the European Jews in 1964. Rassinier was himself a concentration camp survivor (he was imprisoned in Buchenwald for his socialist beliefs), and modern-day revisionists continue to cite his works as scholarly research that questions the accepted facts of the Holocaust.

The Holocaust revisionist movement grew into full strength in the 1970s with the publication of Arthur Butz' The Hoax of the Twentieth Century: The case against the presumed extermination of European Jewry in 1976 and David Irving's Hitler's War in 1977. These books, seen as the basis of much of the Revisionists' arguments, inspired many others to seriously question the maintream publicized version the Holocaust

Institute for Historical Review

In 1979 the Institute for Historical Review (IHR) was founded by tWillis Carto as an organization dedicated to publicly challenging the "myth" of the Holocaust. The IHR sought from the beginning to attempt to establish itself within the broad tradition of historical revisionism, by soliciting token supporters who were not from a neo-Nazi background such as James J. Martin and Samuel Edward Konkin III, and by promoting the writings of French socialist Paul Rassinier and American anti-war historian Harry Elmer Barnes to attempt to show that Holocaust revisionist had a broader base of support besides just neo-Nazis. The IHR brought most of Barnes' writings, which had been out of print since his death, back into print. However, while IHR included token articles on other topics and sold some token books by mainstream historians in its book catalog, the vast majority of material published and distributed by IHR was devoted to questioning the facts surrounding the Holocaust.

The IHR became one of the most important organizations devoted to Holocaust revisionism. In recent years the IHR underwent an internal power struggle which ousted Willis Carto. Under the subsequent leadership of Mark Weber, the IHR has taken on an even more explicit anti-Zionist orientation than it had under Carto. Carto went on to found the Barnes Review magazine after his ousting from IHR, a magazine which is also devoted to Holocaust revisionist.

In recent published articles, volunteer organizations monitoring hate groups have stated that Holocaust revisionist groups, such as the IHR, have been having difficulty finding supporters (and especially financial sponsors) in the United States. As a result, spokespersons for the IHR and other revisionist groups have been travelling to the Middle East in an attempt to forge closer ties with supporters there. IHR spokespersons have been reported to have met with Arabs suspected of involvement with terrorist groups.

In an "About the IHR" statement on their website, the IHR makes the claim that "The Institute does not 'deny the Holocaust'," though they explicitly deny many of the elements of the mainstream view of the Holocaust, calling them a "hoax," as stated in the IHR journal:

There is no dispute over the fact that large numbers of Jews were deported to concentration camps and ghettos, or that many Jews died or were killed during World War II. Revisionist scholars have presented evidence, which "exterminationists" have not been able to refute, showing that there was no German program to exterminate Europe's Jews, and that the estimate of six million Jewish wartime dead is an irresponsible exaggeration. The Holocaust -- the alleged extermination of some six million Jews (most of them by gassing) -- is a hoax and should be recognized as such by Christians and all informed, honest and truthful men everywhere. (Journal for Historical Review, 1993, 13, 5, p. 32)

Opponents have claimed that the IHR has made misleading statements and that they are not Holocaust Revisionists.

Bradley Smith and CODOH

Bradley Smith is the founder of a group called the "Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust" (). CODOH was founded in 1987. In the United States, CODOH has repeatedly tried to place newspaper ads questioning whether the Holocaust happened, especially in college campus newspapers. These ads typically cause a stir on each campus, whether or not they are actually run in the campus newspaper. Some newspapers have accepted the ads, some have rejected them. No matter which decision the editors make most papers run an editorial defending their decision either on free speech grounds or on the grounds that Smith's views are repugnant and rightfully kept out of the newspaper. During the early 1990s, CODOH's ad campaign attracted national controversy after many campus newspapers accepted the ads, and was the subject of editorials in major newspapers such as The New York Times. CODOH's newspaper ad campaign has fallen into inactivity since 2000, because most campus papers now reject the ads as a matter of course and the attempts to place the ads no longer generate the controversy they once did. Bradley Smith has more recently sought other avenues to promote Holocaust revisionist, with little success.

R. v. Keegstra

In 1984, James Keegstra, a Canadian high-school teacher was charged with denying the Holocaust and making other anti-semitic claims in his classroom as part of the course material. Keegstra and his lawyer, Doug Christie, argued that the section of the Criminal Code (now section319{2}), is an infringement of the Charter of Rights (section 9{b}). The case was appealed to the Supreme court of Canada, where it was decided that the crime for which he was committed was an infringement of his freedom of expression, but it was a justified infringement. Keegstra was convicted, and fired from his job.

The Zündel trials

Former Canadian resident Ernst Zündel operated a small-press publishing house called Samisdat Publishing, which published and distributed Holocaust-revisionist material such as Did Six Million Really Die? by Richard Harwood (a/k/a Richard Verrall - a British neo-Nazi leader). In 1985, he was tried and convicted under a "false news" law and sentenced to 15 months imprisonment by an Ontario court for "disseminating and publishing material denying the Holocaust." Zündel gained considerable notoriety after this conviction, and a number of free-speech activists stepped forward to defend his right to publish his opinion. His conviction was overturned in 1992 when the Supreme Court of Canada declared the "false news" law unconstitutional.

Zündel established his own Web site to publicize his viewpoints. In January 2002, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal delivered a ruling in a complaint involving his website, found contravening the Canadian Human Rights Act. The court ordered Zündel to cease communicating hate messages. In February 2003, the INS arrested him in Tennessee on an immigration violations matter, and few days later, Zündel was sent back to Canada, where he tried to gain refugee status. Zündel remained in prison until March 1, 2005, when he was deported to Germany; under whose laws he could be prosecuted for disseminating hate propaganda.

The Lipstadt affair

In 1998, the best-selling British historian David Irving filed suit against American author Deborah Lipstadt and her publisher Penguin Books, claiming that Lipstadt had libeled him in her book Denying the Holocaust. The statements made by Lipstadt included the accusation that Irving deliberately twisted and misrepresented evidence to conform to his ideological viewpoint. Under British libel law, which seeks primarily to protect the reputation of an individual, Lipstadt and her publisher bore the full burden of demonstrating not only that they had not shown "reckless disregard" for the truth (as would be the case in America), but also that the statements made were true (that Irving had denied the Holocaust, and that the Holocaust had, in fact, happened).

Lipstadt and Penguin hired British lawyer Anthony Julius and Cambridge historian Richard J. Evans to present her case. Evans spent two years examining Irving's work, and presented evidence of Irving's misrepresentations, including that Irving had knowingly used forged documents as a source. One of the few witnesses called on Irving's behalf was American evolutionary psychology professor Kevin B. MacDonald. The presiding judge, Charles Gray, was persuaded by the evidence presented by Evans and others and wrote a long and decisive verdict in favor of Lipstadt, calling Irving a "right-wing pro-Nazi polemicist," and confirming the accusations of Lipstadt and Evans.

Some journalists called the verdict a blow to free speech, although others pointed out that it was Irving who had initiated legal action for damages from the publication of Lipstadt's work, and hence no one's speech was restricted.

Ahmadinejad remarks

In a December 2005 speech, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said that the Holocaust was "a myth" that had been promoted to defend Israel, ramping up his rhetoric and triggering a fresh wave of international condemnation. "They have fabricated a legend under the name 'Massacre of the Jews', and they hold it higher than God himself, religion itself and the prophets themselves," he said. He also called for the entire nation of Israel to be relocated to Germany, Austria or the United States, as he holds those nations responsible for the formation of a Jewish State in Palestine. The remarks instantly provoked a firestorm of international controversy as well as swift condemnation from government officials in Israel, as well as in Europe and the United States. All six political parties in the German parliament signed a joint resolution condemning this Holocaust revisionism. Hamas political leader Khaled Mashaal called Ahmadinejad's remarks "courageous" and declared that "...Muslim people will defend Iran because it voices what they have in their hearts, in particular the Palestinian people." In the United States, the Muslim Public Affairs Council condemned Ahmadinejad's remarks.

Public reactions to Holocaust revisionism

Seven European Union member countries including France and Germany have passed laws making the denial or minimization of the Holocaust a crime. Some people who do not deny that the Holocaust occurred nevertheless oppose such restrictions of free speech, including Noam Chomsky. An uproar resulted when Serge Thion used one of Chomsky's essays as a foreword to a book of Holocaust revisionist essays. Many Holocaust Revisionists claim their work falls under a "universal right to free speech", and see these laws as a confirmation of their own beliefs, arguing that the truth does not need to be legally enforced.

At times, Holocaust Revisionists seek to rely on Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which guarantees freedom of expression, when faced with criminal sanctions against their statements or publications. The European Court of Human Rights however has so far declared their complaints inadmissible. According to Article 17 of the Convention, nothing in the Convention may be construed so as to justify acts that are aimed at destroying any of the very rights and freedoms contained therein. Invoking free speech to propagate revisionism of crimes against humanity is, according to the Court's case-law, contrary to the spirit in which the Convention was adopted in the first place. Reliance on free speech in such cases would thus constitute an abuse of a fundamental right.

In the Middle East, individuals from the Syrian and Iranian government, as well as Palestinian political groups (Hamas) have published and promoted Holocaust revisionist statements . revisionists of the Holocaust have been regularly promoted by various Arab leaders and in various media throughout the Middle East. In August 2002 the Zayed Center for Coordination and Follow-up, an Arab League think-tank whose Chairman, Sultan Bin Zayed Al Nahayan, served as Deputy Prime Minister of the United Arab Emirates, promoted a Holocaust revisionist symposium in Abu Dhabi. Hamas leaders have also been promoters of Holocaust revisionist; Abdel Aziz al-Rantissi held that the Holocaust never occurred, that Zionists were behind the action of Nazis, and that Zionists funded Nazism. A press release by Hamas in April 2000 decried "the so-called Holocaust, which is an alleged and invented story with no basis" Holocaust-revisionist literature is also sold at white-supremacist bookstores run by immigrants from the former Soviet Union in Israel.

Many Jews protest that Holocaust revisionism trivializes the suffering caused to victims of the Holocaust when it juxtaposes it with accounts of the Germans (most estimates are 500,000 to 2 million, but some historians put the figure as high as 10 million) who died of starvation and from Russian violence immediately after WWII. They feel this is an attempt to make the Germans feel they don't deserve full blame for the war crimes of the Nazis, on the basis that the Soviets, British, and Americans committed similar war crimes without repercussions. This position is based on the work of James Bacque, Ernst Mayo, and others.

Recently the terms Holocaust industry and Shoah business, have come into vogue among those who believe Jewish leaders use the Holocaust for financial and political gain. The term Holocaust industry comes from the title of a book by Norman Finkelstein, a Jew and the son of Holocaust survivors. He fully accepts the fact that the Holocaust occurred, but believes that its memory is being dishonestly exploited. However, his term has also been picked up by Holocaust Revisionists who believe the Holocaust was lied about for the purpose of financial and political gain, although that usage is much less frequent.

Spokespersons for Holocaust Revisionists have claimed that the Revisionists are often "persecuted" for their beliefs. This stems from the widespread negative reaction to Holocaust revisionist promoted in the mainstream media. Holocaust Revisionists have stated that they have received personal threats and even been assaulted, as happened in an incident known as the Faurisson affair.

Notes

• Alan Milchaman, editor, Postmodernism and the Holocaust Rodolphi, June 1998.
• Ronald J Berger, Fathoming the Holocaust Aldine, 2002
• Charles Maier, The Unmasterable Past: History, Holocaust and German National Identity (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1988), p. 64.

References

About Holocaust Revisionists

• Deborah Lipstadt, Denying the Holocaust: The Growing Assault on Truth and Memory, Plume (The Penguin Group), 1994. Debunking Holocaust revisionism.
• Richard J. Evans, Lying About Hitler: History, Holocaust, and the David Irving Trial, Basic Books, 2002 (ISBN 0465021530). As well as the story of the Irving case, this is an excellent case study on historical research.
• Sergio Troncoso, The Nature of Truth, Northwestern University Press, 2003. A philosophical novel about righteousness and evil, Yale and the Holocaust.
• Mr. Death, a documentary by Errol Morris.
• "Syrian Holocaust revisionist" by Mohammad Daoud, Syria Times September 6 2000, retrieved November 08 2005
• "Antisemitism and Holocaust revisionist in the Iranian Media" MEMRI Special Dispatch Series no 855, January 28 2005, retrieved November 08 2005
• "Palestinian Holocaust revisionist" Reuven Paz, Peacewatch 21 April 2000, retrieved November 08 2005
• Iran President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad denies Holocaust CNN, December 8, 2005
• "Iranian leader denies Holocaust". December 14. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= and |year= / |date= mismatch (help)

By Holocaust Revisionists

• Arthur R. Butz, The Hoax of the Twentieth Century, Newport Beach: Institute for Historical Review, 1994. This is a standard work of Holocaust revisionism, but not a good place for beginners to start.
• Lyle Burkhead, Six Reasons Six reasons given for denying the specific claim that gas chambers were used to kill Jews.
• Faurisson, Robert, My Life As a Revisionist, The Journal of Historical Review, volume 9 no. 1 (Spring 1989), p. 5.

External links

Websites supporting Holocaust Revisionism

• Institute for Historical Review A leading Holocaust revisionist organization
• CODOH Bradley R. Smith's Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust
• VHO Vrij Historisch Onderzoek (Dutch for "Free Historical Reserach")
• David Irving's Action Report Website of David Irving
• The Zundelsite Website of controversial Holocaust denier Ernst Zündel
• Website of Carlos Whitlock Porter

Websites criticizing Holocaust Revisionists

• Open Directory Project: Holocaust revisionist: Opposing Views
• The Nizkor Project — responses to Holocaust revisionist
• How To Be A Revisionist Scholar — a piece originally posted January 3, 1996 on the alt.revisionism newsgroup that spoofs various claims by Holocaust Revisionists
• The Holocaust History Project — documents and essays on the Holocaust and its revisionist

Audio testimony of Holocaust survivors

• Audio Testimony of Dr. Walter Ziffer, Recorded April 11, 2004 Dr. Walter Ziffer, the last Holocaust survivor in Asheville, North Carolina as of April 11, 2004, discusses his interment in several camps, as well as the idea of Holocaust revisionism.Template:Link FA

• Holocaust revisionist
• Pseudohistory
• Historiography