Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ

Excerpt from DEBUNKING HOLOCAUST DENIAL THEORIES: Two Non-Jews Affirm the Historicity of the Nazi Genocide


MYTH #4: "We now know media and governments lie and that all wars are made by propaganda. They lied a lot about Hitler, even silly things like saying he was a paedophile, he had only one testicle, he had flatulence, etc. If they lied or exaggerated about such things, how can we be certain the rest of the things they told us about World War Two are absolutely true? I am pretty sure Hitler had racist ideas and saw Jewry as his main enemy. However, his main objective was NOT to wipe out the Jews from the face of the Earth. If they had departed from Germany it would have been reasonable for him.� –Anonymous Holocaust denier #4


Let’s face it, wars generate lots of propaganda. Always have, always will, and all participants are guilty of it. As the Greek dramatist Aeschylus (525 BC - 456BC) wrote, “In war, truth is the first casualty.�

Rarely does propaganda have a lot to do with reality. Even less so in wartime or when sowing the seeds of war � WW2 and the build-up to it being a case in point.

In the case of Adolf Hitler, speculation and tittle-tattle about his private life are not remotely related to how many Jews died in the Holocaust. To believe otherwise is like saying just because racist wartime cartoons compared the Japanese to animals, and even accused them of bestiality, that proves they didn't kill many millions throughout Asia and the Pacific in WW2. The historical records, of course, conclusively show the Japanese did kill that many.

The bottom line is Hitler’s intentions toward the Jews are not in question.

If you read Mein Kampf and listen to Hitler's speeches, exterminating the Jews was a major part of his agenda. Nazi Germany's desire for ‘racial purity� was very real, and the concepts and aims of the Final Solution (the Nazi policy of annihilating Jews) are well documented.

Did Hitler also have world domination and other wider goals not related to exterminating Jews? Yes most definitely, but that doesn't change the fact his expressed desire to eliminate these people, and to expel them not only from Germany but from the ever-expanding Third Reich, is all on-the-record and official. No getting around that fact.

One of the earliest deniers to promote the idea that Hitler never specified for Jews to be exterminated was Harry Elmer Barnes (1889�1968) � a mainstream American historian who devolved into a “Holocaust revisionist� in his later years and became one of the godfathers of the denial movement.

And one of numerous examples of Barnes� attempts to shift responsibility away from Hitler are to be found in this quote attributed to him in Deborah E. Lipstadt’s book Denying the Holocaust: The Growing Assault on Truth and Memory. (Note the key words we’ve capitalized):

“The size of the German reparations to Israel has been based on the THEORY that vast numbers of Jews were exterminated at the EXPRESS ORDER of Hitler, some six million being the most usually accepted number.�

In other words, Barnes is saying there’s no evidence Hitler ordered the extermination of Jews and it’s simply a theory instead of historical fact.

Hmm…really Mr Barnes?

Well, let’s take a look at the evidence and explore whether Hitler ordering the mass annihilation of European Jews was a mere theory, as you state, or an undeniable historical fact�


“In the summer of 1941, I cannot remember the exact date, I was suddenly summoned to the Reichsfuhrer-SS [Himmler], directly by his adjutant's office. Contrary to his usual custom, Himmler received me without his adjutant being present and said in effect: ‘The Führer has ordered that the Jewish question be solved once and for all and that we, the SS, are to implement that order�.� �Rudolf Höss, excerpt from page 205 of Höss� 1959 memoir Commandant of Auschwitz


In 1922, a whole 17 years before WW2 began, Hitler told a German journalist and retired army major the following (translated by the Nizkor Project from journalist Major Josef Hell’s Aufzeichnung, 1922, ZS 640, p. 5, Institut fuer Zeitgeschichte):

“Once I really am in power, my first and foremost task will be the annihilation of the Jews. As soon as I have the power to do so, I will have gallows built in rows - at the Marienplatz in Munich, for example - as many as traffic allows. Then the Jews will be hanged indiscriminately, and they will remain hanging until they stink; they will hang there as long as the principles of hygiene permit. As soon as they have been untied, the next batch will be strung up, and so on down the line, until the last Jew in Munich has been exterminated. Other cities will follow suit, precisely in this fashion, until all Germany has been completely cleansed of Jews.�

The same source, incidentally, quotes Hell as saying, “His (Hitler’s) eyes no longer saw me but instead bore past me and off into empty space; his explanation grew increasingly voluble until he fell into a kind of paroxysm that ended with his shouting, as if to a whole public gathering.�

Years later, on January 30, 1939, Hitler left little doubt about his desire to annihilate the Jewish race from Europe in his speech to the Reichstag. An excerpt from that speech follows:

“If the international Jewish financiers in and outside Europe should succeed in plunging the nations once more into a world war, then the result will not be the Bolshevizing of the earth, and thus the victory of Jewry, but the annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe!�

That statement was proudly repeated in the 1940 Nazi propaganda film Der ewige Jude or, translated, The Eternal Jew.


“If only one country, for whatever reason, tolerates a Jewish family in it, that family will become the germ center for fresh sedition. If one little Jewish boy survives without any Jewish education, with no synagogue and no Hebrew school, it [Judaism] is in his soul. Even if there had never been a synagogue or a Jewish school or an Old Testament, the Jewish spirit would still exist and exert its influence. It has been there from the beginning and there is no Jew, not a single one, who does not personify it.� –Adolf Hitler, from a conversation with Croatian Foreign Minister General Kvaternik, July 21, 1941 (as quoted in Hitler's Apocalypse: Jews and the Nazi Legacy by Robert S. Wistrich)


“Germany's only remaining objective in the region would be limited to the annihilation of the Jews living under British protection in Arab lands.� –Adolf Hitler (in a meeting with the Mufti, Haj Amin Husseini, on 28 November 1941, as recorded in note form by Dr. Paul Otto Schmidt and quoted in pages 101-104 of Hitler and the Final Solution by Gerald Fleming).


On September 17, 2015, USA Today Network’s The Star Press reported on ‘A Voice Among the Silent: The Legacy of James Grover McDonald,� a new documentary film that confirms it was almost common knowledge in pre-war Germany that Hitler planned to commit genocide.

The report reads, “We’ve all heard plenty about U.S. government officials who turned a blind eye during the Holocaust. But this month, Indiana residents are going to hear the little-known story of one of their own, an American diplomat who did everything he could to warn the world about Hitler, and help rescue European Jewish refugees.�

The article mentions how McDonald was a Catholic from the Midwest with no former interest in Jewish matters. But that all changed when “during a visit to Germany in 1933, he unexpectedly found himself in private conversation with the new chancellor Adolf Hitler � and became the first American to hear the Fuhrer explicitly vow to ‘get rid of the Jews�.�

McDonald then began a mission to meet and warn world leaders of Hitler’s agenda. Those leaders included President Franklin D. Roosevelt and Cardinal Eugenio Marìa Giuseppe Giovanni Pacelli, the future Pope Pius XII. Unfortunately, McDonald’s warnings fell on deaf ears.

The Star Press report continues, “He ran into similar obstacles during his two years (1933-1935) as the League of Nations High Commissioner for Refugees Coming from Germany. During that early phase of the Nazi regime, Hitler was willing to let the Jews leave. The problem, as McDonald discovered, was that no other country was willing to receive them. He resigned as commissioner in 1935 as a protest against the failure of the international community to open its doors.

“Nonetheless, McDonald refused to be deterred. In 1938, he became chairman of the President’s Advisory Committee on Political Refugees. Although its hands were largely tied by the Roosevelt administration’s harsh immigration policy, McDonald and his colleagues did manage to help bring more than 2,000 Jewish refugees to the United States on the eve of the Holocaust.�

What’s interesting about McDonald’s story is it remained unknown to most historians until 2003 when the discovery of missing pages from his diaries revealed exactly what Hitler told him.

As other (previously lost) eyewitness accounts verifying Hitler’s and the Nazis� detailed plans to annihilate the Jewish people are recovered by historians each passing decade, Holocaust deniers� attempts to defend the Third Reich against accusations of genocide become more and more feeble. No, make that more and more laughable.


“These mass murders are solely the result of the Führer's policy.� �Adolf Eichmann’s final speech to the court after being sentenced to death (as quoted on page 152 of Holocaust denier Paul Rassinier’s book Real Eichmann Trial).


“The discovery of the Jewish virus is one of the greatest revolutions that has taken place in the world. The battle in which we are engaged today is of the same sort as the battle waged, during the last century, by Pasteur and Koch. How many diseases have their origin in the Jewish virus! ... We shall regain our health only by eliminating the Jew.� –Adolf Hitler (quoted in The Racial State: Germany 1933-1945 by Michael Burleigh and Wolfgang Wippermann)


“Today I had a very long talk about the Jews with Himmler. I said that the world would no longer tolerate the extermination of the Jews; it was high time that he put a stop to it. Himmler said that it was beyond his power; he was not the Führer and Adolf Hitler had expressly ordered it. I asked him whether he was aware that history would one day point to him as one of the greatest murderers on record, because of the way in which he had exterminated the Jews. He should think of his reputation, not sully it with that reproach. Himmler replied that he had done nothing wrong and only carried out Adolf Hitler's orders. ... I told Himmler that he still had a chance to stand well with history by showing humanity to the Jews and other victims of the concentration camp -- if he really disagreed with Hitler's orders to exterminate them. He could simply forget certain of the Führer's orders and not carry them out � "Perhaps you're right, Herr Kersten," Himmler responded, but he also added that the Führer would never forgive him and would immediately have him hanged.� �Felix Kersten (Heinrich Himmler's personal manual therapist), The Kersten Memoirs 1940-1945

Additional excerpt from DEBUNKING HOLOCAUST DENIAL THEORIES: Two Non-Jews Affirm the Historicity of the Nazi Genocide:

Regarding Mein Kampf, we’d have to agree with the reviewer who said, “Mein Kampf is a terribly written book. It is incoherent and full of random ramblings. It’s over 600 pages long and in dire need of a good editor.�

One of the most insightful reviews of Mein Kampf we could find appears on the WhistlingInTheWind.org site. In answer to the question “Why would I want to read a book by one of the most evil men in history?� the reviewer says, “Hitler was unlike anyone else. His vicious hatred and the horrific acts he committed are something that none of us can understand. So out of historical curiosity, I decided to try and get an insight into the mind of this dictator (to see) how could he possibly justify his evil ideology.�

Excerpts from the review follow:

“Historians have gone through it and found that most of what he claims is false and he leaves out huge parts of his life� The most common theme in the book is how much Hitler hates the Jews�(and) what was surprising was how blatant Hitler was in his hatred. Literally every discussion ended with Hitler blaming the Jews. He almost always referred to Jews in the singular as though there was only one type and they all acted the same way�

“Anti-Semitism isn’t just one of Hitler’s views; it’s his main one on which he bases the rest of his views. Mein Kampf is therefore bursting with the worst possible form of insults and hatred for the Jews. They are frequently called vermin and parasites and never described in human terms. The Jews were ‘a pestilence, a moral pestilence with which the public was being infected. It was worse than the Black Plague of long ago�. Always sub human terms and no insult was too much. Hitler encouraged hatred of the Jews and expected people to go out of their way to antagonise the Jews�

“There were some truly bizarre/disturbing/crazy passages when Hitler went full crazy in his paranoia and hatred of the Jews…He literally believed the world was divided into different races with some superior and other inferior. He placed a high priority on keeping the German race ‘pure� of ‘contamination�.�

Most subscribers (to Whistling In The Wind) praise the review.

Most, but not all. One or two, who obviously have their own agendas, attempt to downplay Hitler’s emphasis on the Jews. One even blames the translation (from German to English) for certain facts being misconstrued or lost in translation.

It’s funny how some people attempt to defend the indefensible, isn’t it?

I need to ask, have you ever actually read Mein Kampf yourself or do you only get your sources from other people reading it? Because I have gotten about halfway through before I had to return it and it is a difficult read yes, with a lot of insult and 'aggressive attitude' but not everything you say is true. Depending on which version you get, depends on how close you get to the original. This might sound wrong, but mine was one of the better ones.
Himmler designed and built those death camps before he was 'hired' by Hitler. He always intended to become a Nazi. Though people are not told this because it is not convenient.
Hitler worked with the muslims. Originally it is believed that Hitler was going to send the Jewish people to Madagasgar, however ended up sending to Israel due to disagreement.
How can you say that the winner does not right history? Why do most people think Hitler committed suicide? Why is it not told that Himmler surrendered on behalf of Germany to the West, got 'fired' by Hitler, then the West and Soviet Union continued to fight until they considered themselves to have won (much like Hiroshima and Nagasaki)? Why don't we hear Winston Churchill's real involvement? Why is he perceived as a hero (a bit like Nelson Mandela who was really a terrorist)? The winner always writes history to make them look superior. Whether it be athletes, politicians, countries etc.
And I am not saying it never happened, and I certainly do not condone what he did. But I think you need to do a little more reading before you write about sensitive topics like this. There are enough Holocaust survivors (I personally know some) that you could have gotten some real life versions to debunk those theories.
And everyone farts and how do you know he didn't have 1 testicle? Who has seen underneath his pants to prove otherwise?

Kelly, on the contrary, I co-wrote the book mentioned above in close consultation with Holocaust survivors (it has changed my life meeting some and also learning from others) as well as WW2 historians and Holocaust documentary filmmakers I've collaborated with... Plus, Holocaust survivor Hetty E. Verolme wrote the foreword to the book...

So before wrongly assuming too many additional things, I suggest if you really want to discuss the genocide in this group that you slow down and take the time to read the other posts in this section where I've included additional excerpts from the book: /topic/group...

Always happy to engage in discussion, but many of the questions you're raising about the Holocaust, and the incorrect assumptions you're making about me, are answered and fully clarified elsewhere.

As to the total lack of authenticity and research you instantly have presumed to be the case (gee, thanks!), here are a few reviews my book DEBUNKING HOLOCAUST DENIAL THEORIES: Two Non-Jews Affirm the Historicity of the Nazi Genocide has received to date from the likes of Holocaust survivors, Jewish news media and Holocaust/WW2 historians (all of whom I'd guess would know at least as much as you claim to know about the genocide...):

★★★★� "First-rate contribution to an important topic. This book is the result of prodigious research. I recommend to everyone who has an open mind and wishes to learn more."
--Peter Kubicek (Holocaust survivor and author of Memories of Evil: Recalling a World War II Childhood)

"A brilliant work of detailed, forensic research and analysis ... A compendium of irrefutable facts, figures, investigation and evaluation to explain why the Final Solution wasn't a Jewish-created myth, but a hideous and perpetrated plan to exterminate Jews and other 'sub-humans' from the pure Aryan world which Hitler and his henchmen wanted to create ... What the Morcans decided to do was to drill down into history and show that the Holocaust was the culmination of thousands of years of anti-Semitism."
--J-Wire Jewish News Daily (see full book review here: )

★★★★� "An excellent book by James and Lance Morcan. It is well researched and well thought out. They have spoken to Holocaust survivors as well as World War II historians.
In this well documented book, they attack five areas deniers talk about and prove the deniers wrong. They discuss the 6 million figure that deniers claim is wrong; the gas chamber exterminations that are claimed to be false; Hitler and the Third Reich being vilified over this issue; that access to many records are denied to deniers because of discriminate European laws; and the power that is assumed Israel has over every phase of our lives.
They use Nazi documents, survivor accounts, eyewitness accounts, scientific tests and results, and photographs (almost entirely Nazi photographs) to prove their case. The fact that the Holocaust is probably the most well documented genocide in history and that it has been proven true through scientific and historical documentation was in their favor. However, the amount of documentation to be gone through was monumental.
The book is a must read for students of the Holocaust and World War II as well as for deniers or those who are conflicted as to the authenticity of the Holocaust."
--Pam Blevins (Regional Museum Educator at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum)

Real Eichmann Trial

Commandant Of Auschwitz by Rudolf Höss



Hitler's Apocalypse: Jews and the Nazi Legacy

Denying the Holocaust: The Growing Assault on Truth and Memory



Hitler and the Final Solution

The Kersten Memoirs, 1940-1945



The Racial State: Germany 1933-1945

Historical revisionism --this horrible theory that 'history is written by the winners' is one big reason I am against those godawful French post-structuralists (names which can loosely be grouped together for convenience: Foucault, Derrida, Lacan, deMan, Lyotard, Kristeva, & Deleuze).

Casting aspersions on history just because there was an ostensible 'victor' on hand [during the period in question], is entirely spurious. Its just a self-serving, negative stereotype of historical sources and historical methodology.

Some folks simply cling to relativism in order to be able to insist on their own opinions. If any facts are merely someone's opinion, then any viewpoint can be given just as much weight as any other. But we know that is not the case. People were slaughtered; and it can't be set aside as 'subjectivity'

The 'relativist' approach is pernicious to both rationality and morality. If one insists that history can always be viewed as a 'matter of opinion' then bias is allowed to rein.

Feliks wrote: "People were slaughtered; and it can't be set aside as 'subjectivity'

The 'relativist' approach is pernicious to both rationality and morality. If one insists that history can always be viewed as a 'matter of opinion' then bias is allowed to rein...."

Yes, Yes, Yes!

I do like the title of this conversation, but this argument looks like we are talking strictly about Hitler.
You all are making good points, but here is a thing. None of us has been there and every person that has been there will have a different view.
Not every person is politically involved and some people were kids when this all happened and so they also have different view and mostly based on what they have been told by others.
The history is written not only by winners, but by every single person.
If we are talking about WW2 I can say, that in my country (I am from Poland) lots of people is still thinking, that Hitler wanted to exterminate mostly Polish people On the other hand in USA's books appeared phrase 'Polish camps of death'.
Weather it was just a mistake or it was made on purpose, we are left with the group of information that are contradictory.

I guess I disagree with James. Because at some point you don't know what is 'base' of the history and so you have no way of knowing what we supposed to rein.

I hope it makes sense.

^^^ 'Individual perspective' has always been a very attractive idea for some people; but it is ultimately a dead-end. A cul-de-sac.

There's a point at which you can not take shelter in your own perspective and hide from reality. There's a point at which established facts must be admitted and recognized; otherwise one is simply being willful and obstinate.

Imagine an auto accident has just occurred at a street intersection outside. A group of witnesses all have a slightly different view of the accident; and naturally the two drivers of the two cars also have their own experience to recount.

But what all agrees is that two cars struck each other and crashed. If you bring them all into a courtroom to determine the facts of the matter, there is no one who can press their viewpoint 'too far' past the viewpoint of all the others; there is no one who can say (first of all) that 'the crash did not happen at all'.

Once an initial consensus is agreed upon; others must follow. All of the witnesses must agree that whenever two heavy objects like automobiles --when colliding into each other--then one result is a loud 'crashing sound' which in this case yes, reached everyone's ears. See what I mean? There are objective truths which all build upon each other.

Okay, 'one of the witnesses was deaf and heard no crashing sound.' Does that mean that none of the other witnesses heard a loud report as the accident took place?

If you want to say that subjective impression takes priority over group consensus; then it never really 'gets very far'. It will not be too long before you have to provide a vast network of alternate explanations that substantiate your sharply divergent view.

A person might wish to insist that 'everyone telling them it is has just rained outside are incorrect' and that it has really been sunny. But then that person has to supply a credible reason why 'everyone' is wrong. There are only a few possibilities: 'everyone is mistaken', 'everyone is lying', and so on, and so on.

If that person steps outside and finds his feet wet; what is his explanation? He can not state that we live in a world where rain--in the first place--is impossible. He agrees with at least that much. If he did not, then he would have a lot of explaining to do; he would have to 'construct his own universe where there is no rain'. Unfortunately, people do not have the ability to do this. The sheer size of such rationalization is too overwhelming.

Said another way: if you experience a painful tingling in the tip of your finger; you must assume that your finger is on the end of your hand which is on the end of your arm. There are certain commonalities in our basic human experience of reality. The way our senses work, etc.

Therefore: 'subjectivity' is a smokescreen, a self-indulgence. A conceit. It is simply refusing to participate; but without being able to defend the reason for one's withdrawal.

Feliks wrote: "^^^ 'Individual perspective' has always been a very attractive idea for some people; but it is ultimately a dead-end. A cul-de-sac.

There's a point at which you can not take shelter in your own perspective and hide from reality. There's a point at which established facts must be admitted and recognized; otherwise one is simply being willful and obstinate...."

You got it.
Would be different if we are talking about a very recent event like say an underreported genocide in a wartorn African nation in say 2015 where not many have done investigative journalism on it yet.

But the Holocaust is arguably the most historically-proven and forensically-proven crime of the 20th Century if not of all time and has already been studied, analyzed, debated between historians, scientists and the like, for over 70 years now. They have come to a basic consensus viewpoint (i.e. 6 million Jews died and 10 million in total) that nobody in mainstream academia, whether in the history or science departments, has disagreed with now for many decades.

I have to say you are both right- The main event remains unchanged.
There were lots of Jews killed.
I have heard form the Jew that there was no holocaust- it was just a war (no specific hatred toward Jews). Than I have heard Jew's offspring, that one faction of Jews was killing the other.
I haven't read books about holocaust, that is only what I have heard, among many other opinions.
The thing is people are lying, people don't always care to give you the whole information and you can persuade people.
There was a car accident, but after a while you might not remember who's fault was that, you probably don't care who was behind the wheel. You might remember how many people have died, but unless you have checked the pulse yourself your information might be invalid and you might never know if someone died in the hospital. I probably wouldn't have been bothered by the colour of the car.
So you might have five different point of view... Two people in the car who are mostly trying to persuade everyone, that it's not their fault. One person, that didn't care until it heard or saw the accident, the other person who didn't understand what had really happened and one person (if you are lucky), who have watched everything step by step and is able to tell you what happened. There is a truth between those five people, but you don't know who is telling the whole truth.

What I am trying to say is we have no way of knowing which version of the true is the most accurate.

Do you know any book about historical accuracy, methods of defining the truth based on all sorts of available documentation? I would love to read something like that.

Katarzyna wrote: "I haven't read books about holocaust..."

No kidding :)

Do you know any book about historical accuracy, methods of defining the truth based on all sorts of available documentation? I would love to read something like that...."

There's a lot of answers for this. As I said above: thinkers such as Foucault and Derrida go to a lot of effort to suggest we can not trust history at all. But based on what they say, do we simply toss out law, or science? Is the field of archaeology obsolete? Is forensic criminology obsolete? Is anthropology dead? No way. We don't stop studying the past based on some far-fetched, abstruse, French theories.

The study of truth --and to a lesser extent, history-- are big topics in the field of philosophy. The question is, 'how do we know what we know'?

There are difficult books on this and there are easy books.
Descartes and Aristotle (philosophers) are a good place to start. For convenience, try a short 'commentary' or overview of their ideas, like these:
Aristotle: A Very Short Introduction
Descartes: A Very Short Introduction
Other books in this same great series from Oxford U, are similarly wonderful:
Hume: A Very Short Introduction
Reality: A Very Short Introduction
Consciousness: A Very Short Introduction
Philosophy of Science: A Very Short Introduction
There's 200+ titles in this series and its a great way to familiarize yourself with philosophical concepts; without getting bogged down in any one really thorny or dense book.

Of course, anyone interested in WWII really must *at least* read this seminal work:
The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich: A History of Nazi Germany

From the preface of Noam Chomsky's Pirates and Emperors, Old and New:

"St. Augustine tells the story of a pirate captured by Alexander the Great, who asked him "how he dares molest the sea." "How dare you molest the whole world?" the pirate replied: "Because I do it with a little ship only, I am called a thief; you, doing it with a great navy, are called an Emperor.""

It's the distinction between who we call the good guys and the bad guys that is the problem when we consider history being written by the victors.

I'd argue what you're alluding to is a separate subject to verifying the Holocaust tho, Harry.

James wrote: "I'd argue what you're alluding to is a separate subject to verifying the Holocaust tho, Harry."

Sorry - yes, I should have made that clear. I don't apply it to the Holocaust at all. Was just thinking generally about 'history being written by the victors', such as the "cowboys" being the heroes and "the Indians" being the baddies, up until recently.

Harry wrote: "It's the distinction between who we call the good guys and the bad guys that is the problem when we consider history being written by the victors...."

But this aspect--howsoever interesting it is--simply does not discount history as a discipline as a whole. The historical record of the past comes from many inputs and sources which do not lend themselves to suggestions of bias. Its simply a slurring of academia to style everything in terms of 'heroes and villains'.

'A nation invaded their neighbor'. That's a bare fact. The invaders can claim they were 'invited'; or the suborned nation can claim the invaders 'came with plunder in mind'--these are opinions. But there's a vast realm of readily-accessible facts that stem from the simple action of the landing party crossing the border.

A historian watching the event (perhaps from a neutral country, if you like) can assemble the records of this deed and record them. It is necessary and vital that someone does so; otherwise history is lost altogether. [It can't be left 'undone' or 'unreported'. Whether you like history or not--records must be preserved. If not, then a government can say what it pleases about the past and no one can tell what the truth is at all. This was Stalin's innovation.]

Yes, if someone has a bias, there are cheap, unsavory ways in which to 'denigrate' the historian. But they're usually fallacies. One might say 'oh well that historian was a westerner, therefore his writing is bound to favor his own people'.

Really? Uh, no. Sollie. That is an ad hominem attack; it is several kinds of logical fallacy. Nothing new there; when you want to deliberately snub someone's arguments the first thing to do is 'call their background into question'.

But just go back to the record. Captain Cook sailed to Polynesia and encountered island people--what happened as a result? The bones of an army were found hundred miles across a border when they have no reason to be there. Was there an encroachment or was there not? There are a lot of things history answers quite simply and without any reason for our 'suspicion'.

Yeah I think a better way to phrase the old saying would be "history is SOMETIMES written by the winners", but in the case of the Holocaust (which is this thread's topic...) the history was fairly recorded by the winners. Furthermore, the losers (the Nazis) recorded in detail their crimes and their methods of extermination.

So, in this instance, the old adage isn't true. However many deniers will state matter-of-factly that "history is written by the winners" and then launch off that lie to attempt to dismantle already verified history.

Well said. Just because there appears to be a 'dominant side' in any timeperiod doesn't constitute automatic bias. Allies or Axis; records are records.

The Roman Empire kept meticulous records because they were bureaucratic-minded in their government practices. Losses and wins, bad harvests and good harvests, were all recorded equally.

Yeah, I didn't mean to sidetrack this thread - and I agree with what's being said about the proven reality of the Holocaust.

But generally, I still agree with Chomsky on history being written by the victors - in that it's not about saying 'things didn't happen' but looking at HOW they have been recorded and told with bias. The Council of Nicea... Native Americans etc. There's loads of examples. Hell, you only have to watch films like Pearl Harbour to see how history is spinned in favour of a certain propaganda bias. But that's all for another thread. :)

Nice topic with a thought-provoking example. To me, "History might be written by the winners, but all winners have to lose some day, sooner or later (if they continue to play). We re-write history and you can not hide the truth. Of course, you can accept only those truth you want to accept. But still, there are some, whether you believe it or not, take it or not, they are true.

Feliks wrote: "The Roman Empire kept meticulous records because they were bureaucratic-minded in their government practices. Losses and wins, bad harvests and good harvests, were all recorded equally. ..."

The Nazis were also meticulous record keepers.

Harry wrote: "But generally, I still agree with Chomsky on history being written by the victors - in that it's not about saying 'things didn't happen' but looking at HOW they have been recorded and told with bias. The Council of Nicea... Native Americans etc. There's loads of examples. Hell, you only have to watch films like Pearl Harbour to see how history is spinned in favour of a certain propaganda bias. ..."

Fair enough. Just to tack on one last set of thoughts:

Really, it's fully arguable that everything men communicate to each other is 'propaganda' to some extent. Every single thing we say to each other has a latent aim to convince us...of something. All our arts and letters; all our sciences...can conceivably be construed to contain coaxing and persuasion.

Being scrupulous and discriminating towards information is fine. We ought not believe everything we read or hear; and rightly so. But allowing oneself to be spooked by propaganda is akin to believing nothing. And believing in nothing makes one just as gullible as believing in everything.

Our country is founded on the faith which our founding fathers had in the common man to make up his mind on any topic as long as that man is given all the facts. This is what we generally have, when it comes to dissecting the past. We have far more information about 'the past' than we ever do about 'the present'.

Propaganda is dangerous when only one side of a story is presented. There is more than one source of information available to us for Pearl Harbor, the Council of Nicea, the Holocaust, the battle of Cannae; or whatever. We are not being hoodwinked; we do not need to debase or exile 'our existing establishment of historians'.

I'm a fan of Chomsky but his de-constructionism is reckless. The upshot is that it sets up arbitrary non-historians and non-authorities outside the normal flow of academia; puts them in a position of second-guessing and re-determining (for us) ...'who is allowed' to tell us history. And meanwhile, who are they? Are they any better than the historians whom they would like call into question? What determines their choice of 'the right historians'? Who is to say Chomsky is free from bias?

It is okay to recognize that powerful empires "by default" assume the role of storytelling and to bear this in mind when reading official versions of their conquests. But it is no better alternative to let someone else step in and simply sow seeds-of-doubt.

We can't "over-worry" about our record-keepers. We can't allow anxiety over 'historical accuracy' to make us 'jump at shadows' or deem that 'no history is free of bias'.

You can't go-out-of-your-way to suspect that all historians are simply 'pursuing vested interests'.

If so, then you wind up trusting nothing. And in that case, all your supports against modern-day schisms and chicanery would then be swept away.

Knowledge of the past is the best armament against contemporary lies, con-men, and revisionists.