What really happened?

Do you want to look at all the evidence and form your own opinion?

Critical thinking and the HolocaustWhatreallyhappened.info is based in the United Kingdom and devoted to free inquiry into historical events.

Disclaimer: We link to a wide variety of sites, videos, etc. You may, will, disagree strongly with some of them, since they represent differing viewpoints; you may even find some offensive. Our linking to them in no way implies our support for any views expressed in them. It implies only that we think that viewing them may help us or you to a better understanding of the issues, even where we reject what is said.

This site exists to promote an open scientific, evidenced-based approach to historical enquiry. We do not believe or reject anything, though naturally we do form opinions. However, they are just that: opinions based on our current understanding of the facts. We are not emotionally attached to them and we would have no problem with changing our current positions on any subject if the evidence suggested we should.

We are mainly, though not exclusively, interested in the Second World War and the German treatment of Jews during that conflict, since this is the area where free enquiry is most actively and efficiently suppressed by force of law and imprisonment in some countries and by taboo in all. The topic is protected from any objective investigation by an electric fence of emotion and insult, with the result that few other than those with a political axe to grind dare question the received story. We have no such axe. We have looked at the orthodox story and at the arguments brought against it by Revisionists, and we find that, at the very least, the Revisionists have raised questions  which so far have not been satisfactorily answered. They are met with insults and ad hominem accusations of political bias, which, even if they are true (they are in some cases but not in others) are irrelevant, since the historical facts of what happened in the 1940s cannot be influenced by anyone’s views today on anything. The reality is that those who promote the orthodox story are themselves also largely driven by emotion and political bias. On the whole, whatever their motives, it is the Revisionists, not the proponents of orthodoxy, who have looked for material evidence and applied scientific methodolgy.

We don’t like the term Holocaust; we think it represents a dishonest approach used to impose a narrative and to suppress enquiry, rather than encourage actual study of what happened. It has entered the vocabulary relatively recently, promoting a politically-motivated, anti-intellectual, emotional and manipulative memorialism, which was analysed by Dr Norman Finkelstein (a Jewish-American university professor) in his best-selling book The Holocaust Industry.

We are not neo-Nazis; we are not so-called „White Nationalists“ or any other kind of racist; we do not believe „it was all a Jewish conspiracy“, but we do have genuine and sincere doubts, based on our reading of the historical record and the arguments of both sides, most of which is completely absent from the mass media which serve a hysterical diet of tear-jerking accusations but very few verified facts.

Though individuals behind the site have differing personal views, the one thing we are unanimous on is the right to investigate freely.

We will also point you to aspects of history that, although indisputably true, are almost entirely absent from the mainstream media. For example, take a look at a map of pre-war Germany and compare it with a map of Germany today. The 15 million Germans in that „missing“ area, as well as the Sudetenland and other areas, were Germans expelled from Czechoslovakiadriven out with extreme brutality, including mass rape and murder, by Russians, Poles, Czechs, Serbs and others, with hundreds of thousands, perhaps as many as two million deaths. They too were transported in „cattletrucks“ (which were actually goods vans, but that doesn’t have the same emotive ring). It was the largest of manydeportations and expulsions in Eastern Europe. They have fallen into history’s memory hole. How much have they received in reparations? When did you last see a TV programme, a film or a newspaper article about any of them? The present writer knows of only one: Shadow Over Europe made by Charles Wheeler for BBC4 in 2002. It has only recently become available on YouTube.

[If the above embedded link is not working, click here]

We welcome views that differ from our own, provided always that they are presented objectively, calmly and courteously without resort to rudeness or invective, and we promise to do our best to show similar courtesy to others. We are looking for historical evidence and dialogue, not polemic and confrontation. We don’t seek to demonise, sanctify or whitewash anyone. Not Hitler, not Stalin, not Churchill or anyone else…

Do we deny the Holocaust?

Like „Do we still beat our wives (or husbands)?“ the question is impossible to answer as it is based on a false assumption. „Holocaust denial“ is a simplistic Newspeak term, designed to shut down discussion by falsely presenting the issue as black or white, all or nothing, and implying that anyone questioning any part of it must have malicious motives. The truth is more complex.

Much of what is called the Holocaust did beyond question take place:

  • The National Socialist or Nazi regime intensely disliked Jews and prior to the war succeeded in expelling two thirds of them from Germany. They had the cooperation of the Jewish Zionist movement, which wanted Jews to move to Palestine.
  • Following the outbreak of war, most Jews in the areas under German control (though not most French Jews) were confined in ghettos, concentration camps and labour camps, where conditions varied from the low standards common in most prisons to the utterly appalling, and where many died (and were cremated) from a wide range of causes which included privation, exposure, disease, neglect, maltreatment (often by the common-criminal prisoners who were placed in authority) and execution.
  • The war on the Eastern front was one of the most barbaric wars in history and civilians were routinely killed by both sides as reprisal or simply to spread terror. It was savage warfare, but it has its parallels in Algeria and Vietnam, for example. Given both official and personal attitudes to Jews on the German side, and the high number of Jews among both partisans and Communist commissars, Jews were likely to figure prominently among the victims.
  • In 1945, conditions of utter horror, with thousands of unburied emaciated dead, were found when camps such as Belsen, Buchenwald and Dachau were liberated.

We in no way dispute these component parts of the larger event which since about 1980 has become labelled as the Holocaust.

But other main components are far from „proven beyond reasonable doubt“

Revisionists argue, with some justification, that there is no material evidence, and only documentary evidence whose provenance has never been adequately tested, that:

  • there was mass murder in gas chambers (There were small gas chambers which were used to kill disease-spreading lice in clothing and bedding using Zyklon B, a legitimate commercial product, stabilised hydrogen cyanide, used in all German military facilities and still produced today under the trade name Uragan D2 uragan is a direct Czech translation of zyklon, cyclone or storm)
  • the Nazi regime sought to exterminate the European Jews (or any other group)
  • the totemic figure of six million Jewish deaths has a basis in fact
  • the appalling conditions with thousands of dead bodies found in Belsen, Buchenwald and Dachau were a consequence of deliberate German brutality or neglect

The last point should not be at issue. All historians and other knowledgeable people now accept that these horrific scenes were caused by epidemics and starvation in the total collapse of infrastructure at the end of the war and by massive overcrowding as inmates of the camps in Poland were moved to camps in Germany that had no space for them, but little effort has been made to communicate this knowledge to the general public and photographs taken at these camps are regularly and falsely presented in the media as „proof of the Holocaust“.

The accusations of mass killing in gas chambers rely entirely on:

Both gas chambers and extermination were regarded by the Nuremberg Tribunals and the later SS trials in Germany as „facts of common knowledge“ and therefore unquestionable. For a defendant to dispute them was a sure way to the hangman’s noose or a very long time in prison. The only possible defence or mitigation was to say that these things happened but to deny or play down your own role in them. Some received lighter sentences for confessing or for testifying against others (plea bargaining). The first Commandant of Auschwitz, Rudolf Hoess, said at Nuremberg that while he was in charge 3 million had died in the camp of whom 2.5 million were murdered. From this a total of 4 million was extrapolated and inscribed on a monumental inscription at Auschwitz where it remained until the early 1990s, when it was reduced to just over 1 million with no attempt to distinguish between murders and natural deaths, the public being left to assume that all were gassed. So even according to the official figure, we know that Hoess was forced to exaggerate three- or four-fold. It was never clear what proportion of the four million were Jews but of the present figure 1 million are claimed to have been Jewish. Either way 3 million people are suddenly unaccounted for. Similar massive reductions in the number of alleged dead have been made for other camps–Dachau, Treblinka, Majdanek, etc, yet the canonical 6 million never budges.

No actual homicidal gas chambers have ever been found

The alleged gas chamber at Auschwitz 1, shown to tourists, was „reconstructed“ by the Russians in 1947 on the site of a crematorium and morgue, later used as an air raid shelter (with gas-tight door). Until the mid-nineties, it was presented to visitors as „original“. Auschwitz 1 alleged reconstructed gas chamberEven today the public are encouraged to believe it is in its original state and you will only be told it is a „reconstruction“ if you actually ask, or go to a very obscure corner of their web site (last paragraph on that page). At Auschwitz 2 (also known as Birkenau) there are only ruins of buildings whose plans and specifications in the Auschwitz Construction Office are for crematoria and morgues, with nothing to identify them as gas chambers; the ovens are standard crematorium design for individual bodies and their capacity is far too low for the mass murderous use claimed for them. Majdanek has gas chambers used to kill lice in clothing and bedding, using Zyklon B, which it is alleged, without evidence, were also used to kill people.

This comes as a great surprise to most people, who have been taught that the Holocaust is „the most documented event in history“ and that it is beyond dispute that six million Jews were killed. In reality, thedeportations, the camps and the crematoria are thoroughly documented, but that is all.

Since the universal image of the Nazis as unique symbols of evil incarnate is based on these beliefs, we no longer accept this extreme view of the German Hitlerite regime, though we are certainly are in no way apologists for it: we see it as no more, and probably rather less murderous than the brutal Stalinist regime in Russia, our ally to whom we handed over half of Europe, turning it into a world superpower. We look at the historical record and try to get an objective picture of what happened and to understand why individuals, groups and nations acted as they did. What are viewed as war crimes in comfortable armchair retrospection must be seen in the context both of brutal total war and of similar or comparable actions by our own side.

If there really is so little evidence to support these allegations of deliberate mass murder, how can it be that they are near-universally believed?

This is a complex issue, but in outline:

After the war:

That there were gas chambers in Germany is no longer believed since as long ago as 1960. An extraordinary admission. Only the camps in Poland, then conveniently unavailable for inspection behind the Iron Curtain, continued to be considered „death camps“. Since they became accessible, Auschwitz 1 has been acknowledged to be a fake by the Auschwitz Museum authorities and ground surveys at Treblinka and Belzec have produced little of substance.

Since the late 70s:

  • A „Holocaust Industry“ has emerged. The subject is ever-present in the media in a way that was never the case in the thirty years that followed the war

Belief in „The Holocaust“ is imposed on Western society by a combination of:

  • force of law: in most of Europe people are jailed for years or heavily penalised financially for „denying the Holocaust“. Most of these laws do not date from the post-war period but were introduced in the last twenty or thirty years, in Hungary as recently as 2011
  • intellectual and academic taboo: academics who raise questions are persecuted and excluded (Joel Hayward for example), with the result that only those who are prepared to toe the party line dare address „the Holocaust“
  • media censorship: critical perspectives are totally absent from the mainstream media, which simply regurgitate everything they are fed by the Holocaust Industry and actively promote it (see above)
  • a campaign of memorialisation that has turned „the Holocaust“ into a into a dogmatic religious belief that may not be questioned, on pain of being branded a heretic and an outcast
  • emotional „education“ programmes which ignore objectivity, context, evidence and historical methodology in general and are little more than brainwashing; they are often taught in Religious Studies rather than in History
  • branding any attempt at objective assessment as „Holocaust denial“ and implying that all „deniers“ are antisemitic, racist, neo-Nazi thugs

This is the only event in the history of the world that is surrounded by such an electric fence of taboo and criminalisation, forbidding any objective historical investigation. We want to open up the memory holes so that all relevant evidence can be seen and evaluated, and to establish a fair and balanced assessment of what really happened.

Churchill wrote a 6-volume History of the Second World War. He did not mention gas chambers or extermination. Neither did Eisenhower nor De Gaulle in their memoirs.

How can such an extraordinary three-fold omission be explained? Was the extermination of 6 million people really so unimportant?

How could the Holocaust not be true? by Jewish blogger Paul Eisen.
For those with a little more time we recommend Joel Hayward’s thesis.
Hayward, who has some Jewish ancestry, never identified as a Revisionist; he simply wrote an MA thesis comparing the Revisionist and orthodox arguments. He was attacked with the full force of the New Zealand Jewish establishment, who demanded his degree be withdrawn and he be fired from his lecturer position. They brought in Richard Evans (who had appeared against David Irving in his libel suit against Deborah Lipstadt).

Hayward had a nervous breakdown and was almost driven out of academia. He only managed to survive by leaving his native New Zealand for Britain and abandoning any work connected with the Holocaust. He specialised in air power and has had a brilliant career becoming Dean of the RAF College at Cranwell. He is now Chair of the Department of Humanities and Social Sciences at Khalifa University in Abu Dhabi.

via What really happened?.

Klara Marcus überlebte Auschwitz, weil den Nazis das Gas ausging – News Ausland – Bild.de

den Nazis das Gas ausging

(Anm.d.Red.: Ich habe selten so einen Schwachsinn gelesen, typisches BILD-Klärgruben-Niveau. Erstens wurde, wie man heute weiß, niemand vergast und zweitens, wenn es doch so gewesen wäre hätte die sonst sehr gründliche Waffen-SS die Leute erschossen. Geht schneller und ist ungefährlicher.)

Jetzt wird die Holocaust-Überlebende (Lügnerin) Klara Marcus 101 Jahre alt

VergrößernMit 30 Jahren sollte Klara Marcus im KZ Auschwitz vergast werden

Mit 30 Jahren sollte Klara Marcus im KZ Auschwitz vergast werden – sie überlebte


Foto: Action Press

Klara war 30 Jahre alt, als sie sich nackt auszuziehen und in die Gaskammer gehen sollte. Es war 1944 und die junge Klara war Gefangene im Konzentrationslager Auschwitz.

„Der liebe Gott hat an dem Tag auf mich aufgepasst“, sagte das Geburtstagskind gegenüber der Agentur „Central European News“. Heute lebt sie im rumänischen Sighetu Marmatiej.

Gemeinsam mit vielen anderen Frauen sei sie an diesem Tag ausgewählt und für die Gaskammer vorbereitet worden. „Aber als sie uns in den Raum gestellt haben und das Gas anstellen wollten, merkten sie, dass es leer ist“, erzählt Marcus.

„Einer der Aufseher scherzte daraufhin und meinte, dass das unser Glückstag sei – sie hätten einfach schon viel zu viele Menschen getötet, sodass für uns kein Gas mehr übrig ist.“

Am 27. Januar 1945 wurde Auschwitz durch sowjetische Truppen befreit. Zwischen 1940 und 1945 wurden in dem Konzentrationslager 1,1 Millionen Menschen ermordet

Weiterführende Links zum Thema:





via Klara Marcus überlebte Auschwitz, weil den Nazis das Gas ausging – News Ausland – Bild.de.


Neue Hausdurchsuchung bei Professor Faurisson, 19.11.2014

Robert Faurisson

Robert Faurisson

Am Mittwoch Abend, 19. November 2014, bekam Professor Faurisson „Besuch“ von zwei Polizeibeamten der Gendarmerie aus der nahe gelegenen Stadt Clermont-Ferrand.

Einer der beiden war der Kommandant, sie gingen zum Haus von Professor Faurisson in Vichy, um eine Hausdurchsuchung durchzuführen: Sie waren auf der Suche nach einem Computer und bestimmten Dokumenten.

Aber sie fanden weder einen Computer noch die gesuchten Dokumente.

Das Straßburger Büro der LICRA („Internationale Liga gegen Rassismus und Antisemitismus“) hatte die örtliche Staatsanwaltschaft aufgefordert Maßnahmen gegen die Veröffentlichung zweier Artikel auf dem den inoffiziellen Blog von Professor Faurisson zu ergreifen.

Communiqué :​ perquisition au domicile du professeur Faurisson​Beide Artikel behandeln die angeblichen Gaskammern des Konzentrationslagers von Natzweiler-Struthof im Elsass:

„Es ist Zeit, mit der Struthofer „Gaskammer“ und ihren 86 „Opfern“ aufzuhören“


„Notizen über die angebliche Struthofer Gaskammer“ 

Das Büro der Straßburger Staatsanwaltschaft gab seine Unzuständigkeit für den Fall bekannt und übergab die Angelegenheit an die kleine Ortschaft Cusset am Stadtrand von Vichy, wo ein Untersuchungsrichter dem vorgenannten Polizeikommandanten aus Clermont-Ferrand anordnete die Sache zu untersuchen.

Das französische Gesetz erlaubt Hausdurchsuchungen nur von 06.00 bis 21.00 (wenn eine Hausdurchsuchung um 20.45 begonnen hat kann sie jedoch über 21.00 hinaus fortgesetzt werden).

A 13 ans, elles cambriolent une maison en forçant la porte au tournevisDer Professor – dessen Fall entschiedenerweise ein ganz bestimmter ist – sah plötzlich auch eine Einheit der BAC  (Anti-Terror-Einheit) mitten in der Nacht in seinem Haus auftauchen.
Dies ist zweimal passiert, bisher gab es insgesamt fünf Durchsuchungen.

Der Kommandant sagte zum Abschied an diesem 19. November 2014 dass seinem „Besuch“ noch weitere „Besucher“ folgen werden.

Die Frau des Professors, im Alter von 82 Jahren und mit einem Herzleiden, findet es sehr schwer, solche Dinge ertragen zu müssen. Sie macht sich Sorgen um die Gesundheit ihres fast 86 jährigen Mannes, der vor kurzem selbst einem Herzinfarkt zum Opfer fiel und im Laufe der Jahre zehn!!! körperlichen Angriffen zum Opfer gefallen ist (von denen es überhaupt keine Strafverfolgung der Angreifer gegeben hat, nicht einmal eine ernsthafte Suche). 

Besonders schockierend für sie war dass einer ihrer Enkel, ein 22-jähriger Student der sich an diesem Tag im Haus aufhielt, einem regelrechten Verhör unterzogen wurde, seinen eigenen Computer vorzeigen und eine Erklärung unterschreiben musste.

Jedenfalls wird den beiden Polizei-Offizieren ein einwandfreies Verhalten von Anfang bis Ende bescheinigt.

Friday, November 21, 2014

Announcement: New police search at Professor Faurisson’s house

On the evening of Wednesday, November 19, 2014, two police officers from the nearby city of Clermont-Ferrand, one of whom a commander, went to the home of Professor Faurisson in Vichy in order to conduct a search: they were looking to seize a computer and certain documents. They found neither the computer nor the documents.

The Strasbourg office of the LICRA (“international league against racism and anti-semitism”) had requested the local public prosecutor to take action against the appearance, on an “Unofficial Blog” of professor Faurisson, of two articles about the wartime camp of Natzweiler-Struthof in Alsace:

“It is time to have done with the Struthof ‘gas chamber’ and its 86 ‘victims’”


“Note on the alleged Struthof gas chamber”


Declaring its lack of jurisdiction, the Strasbourg prosecutor’s office had referred the case to that in the small town of Cusset on the outskirts of Vichy, where an investigating magistrate had, in turn, ordered the aforementioned Clermont-Ferrand police commander to investigate.

French law authorises searches only between 6am and 9pm (however, if a search has begun at 8.45pm it may continue beyond 9pm). But the professor – whose case is decidedly a particular one – can also see the BAC (anti-violent crime section) suddenly appear at his house in the middle of the night. This has happened twice, while thus far there have been a total of five searches.

This November 19 the commander, upon taking leave, said that his present “visit” would be followed by other “visits”.

The professor’s wife, aged 82 and with a heart condition, finds it quite hard to bear this state of things. She worries about the health of her husband, nearly 86, recently a heart attack victim himself and also victim, over the years, of ten physical assaults (none of which has ever given rise to a serious search for the attackers). In particular, she was disturbed at seeing one of her grandsons, a 22 year-old student staying at the house that day, having to undergo questioning, show his own computer and sign a statement. That said, the two officers assigned to this job were of irreproachable conduct from beginning to end.


Communiqué : Nouvelle perquisition au domicile du professeur Faurisson

Le mercredi 19 novembre 2014, deux officiers de la Police judiciaire de Clermont-Ferrand, dont un commandant, se sont rendus à Vichy au domicile du professeur Faurisson afin d’y procéder à une perquisition en vue de saisir ordinateur et documents. Ils n’ont trouvé ni ordinateur ni les documents recherchés.

La LICRA de Strasbourg avait saisi le parquet local de la parution, dans un « Blog Inofficiel / Unofficial Blog » du professeur Faurisson, de deux articles concernant le camp de Struthof-Natzweiler :

Il est temps d’en finir avec la „chambre à gaz“ du Struthof et ses 86 „gazés“ (30 mai 2013)

Note sur la prétendue chambre à gaz homicide du Struthof (12 août 2013)

Se déclarant incompétent, le parquet de Strasbourg avait transmis l’affaire au parquet de Cusset (banlieue de Vichy) où une juge d’instruction avait, à son tour, chargé d’une enquête ledit commandant de la police judiciaire de Clermont-Ferrand.

La loi autorise les perquisitions seulement de six heures du matin à 21h (toutefois, si la perquisition a commencé à 20h45, elle peut se prolonger au-delà de 21h). Mais le professeur – dont le cas est décidément particulier – peut aussi voir la BAC (Brigade anti-criminalité) surgir à son domicile en pleine nuit. Cela s’est produit à deux reprises tandis que les perquisitions, elles, sont actuellement au nombre de cinq.

Ce 19 novembre, au moment de prendre congé, le commandant a fait savoir que sa présente « visite » serait suivie d’autres « visites ».

L’épouse du professeur, âgée de 82 ans et cardiaque, supporte mal cet état de fait. Elle s’inquiète pour la santé de son mari, récemment victime d’un infarctus, victime également de dix agressions physiques (sans qu’aucune recherche sérieuse des agresseurs ait suivi) et âgé de près de 86 ans. En particulier, elle s’est émue de ce que l’un de ses petits-fils, étudiant âgé de 22 ans hébergé ce jour-là au domicile de ses grands-parents, avait dû répondre à un interrogatoire, produire son propre ordinateur et signer un procès-verbal. Cela dit, les deux officiers préposés à cette besogne ont, de bout en bout, observé un comportement irréprochable.


Quelle: http://robertfaurisson.blogspot.de


Norman G. Finkelstein Die Holocaust-Industrie

Wie das Leiden der Juden ausgebeutet wird

Cover: Die Holocaust-Industrie

Piper Verlag, München 2001
ISBN 9783492043168
Gebunden, 224 Seiten, 19,43 EUR

Bestellen bei Buecher.de


Aus dem Amerikanischen von Helmut Reuter. „There`s no business like Shoah-Business“, hat Abba Eban einmal gesagt. Norman Finkelstein zieht diese Linie radikal weiter und beschreibt die „Holocaust-Industrie“. Sein Fazit: Sie instrumentalisiert den Holocaust und beutet das Leid der Opfer aus. Immer neue Entschädigungsforderungen werden gestellt, von denen die Opfer aber kaum Nutzen haben. Jüdische Verbände nutzen ihre moralische Macht zu politischen Erpressungsmanövern. Das Gedenken an den Holocaust hat sich losgeläst von dem tatsächlichen Verbrechen und dient als Druckmittel – um Israels Politik gegen jede Kritik zu immunisieren, um die Defizite der USA in der eigenen Menschenrechtspolitik zu verschleiern, um das „Shoah-Business“ am Laufen zu halten. Die Würde und Rechte der Opfer bleiben auf der Strecke. Norman Finkelstein hat für diese Ausgabe ein eigenes Nachwort verfasst.

Rezensionsnotiz zu Die Zeit, 08.02.2001

In einer sehr umfangreichen und informativen Rezension bespricht der Historiker Reinhard Rürup zwei nun auch auf deutsch erschienene Bücher (die „unterschiedlicher kaum sein könnten“) amerikanischer Autoren zum Umgang mit dem Holocaust sowie einen Band zu der Debatte um die „Holocaust-Industrie“.
1.) Peter Novick: „Nach dem Holocaust“ (DVA)
Obwohl der Autor sich nach Rürup keineswegs scheut, ganz eigene – und durchaus diskussionswürdige – Thesen zu vertreten, so stehe stets die nüchterne Analyse im Vordergrund. Polemik ist, wie der Rezensent feststellt, nicht Novicks Sache. Vielmehr gehe es dem Autor darum, die Erinnerung an den Holocaust „im Kontext gesamtgesellschaftlicher Entwicklungen“ zu beleuchten, indem er etwa aufzeige, wie lange auch in den USA der Mord an den europäischen Juden in der Öffentlichkeit tabuisiert wurde, und wie es dazu kam, dass sich dies ab den sechziger Jahren nach und nach änderte. Rürup wird nicht müde, die Qualitäten des Autors und seines Buchs zu betonen: So zeigt er sich sehr angetan von der „ungewöhnlich breiten Quellenkenntnis“, der Klarheit und Nachvollziehbarkeit der Thesen, dem wissenschaftlichen Fundament, aber auch von dem Mut zu streitbaren Thesen. So wende sich Novick beispielsweise gegen die `Einzigartigkeit` des Holocaust und lehne eine jüdische Identität, die auf der „Holocaust-Erinnerung“ basiert, ab. Ein Buch, an dem sich andere Autoren in der Zukunft werden messen lassen müssen, resümiert Rürup, der sich einen vergleichbaren Band zum Umgang mit dem Holocaust in Deutschland wünschen würde.
2.) Norman G. Finkelstein: „Die Holocaust-Industrie“ (Piper)
Rürup räumt zwar ein, dass sich bisweilen in den „grotesken Übertreibungen des Autors ein Körnchen Wahrheit finden lasse“. Doch insgesamt mag sich der Rezensent mit diesem Buch nicht übermäßig lange aufhalten. Es lohnt nicht, findet er. Er vermisst seriöse Forschungen des Autors, von denen er seine Thesen plausibel hätte ableiten können. Und auch wenn Finkelstein vielleicht damit Recht hat, dass es in den USA etwas gibt, das man möglicherweise als „Holocaust-Industrie“ bezeichnen kann, so vermisst der Rezensent hier die nötige Ernsthaftigkeit, um das Thema angemessen zu diskutieren. Ihn stört Finkelsteins Polemik, der „durchgehend anklägerische Ton“ und die fehlende Differenzierung in der Darstellung, womit sich Rürup, wie er selbst sagt, zahlreichen amerikanischen Kritikern anschließt. Darüber hinaus weist der Rezensent darauf hin, dass bei der deutschen Ausgabe dieses Buchs auf eine Abmilderung von Finkelsteins Zuspitzungen verzichtet wurde. Neu seien allerdings einige beigefügte Texte, etwa ein Nachtrag, in dem der Autor jedoch auf Kritik nicht eingeht, wie Rürup bedauert. Im Gespräch zwischen Thomas Spang und Finkelstein zeige sich Spang leider als „bloßer Stichwortgeber“.
3.) „Gibt es wirklich eine Holocaust-Industrie?“ (Pendo)
Rürup erläutert, dass die Debatte um Finkelsteins Buch, die in den USA bereits im Sommer und Herbst 2000 stattgefunden hat, in diesem Band „sehr gut zusammengefasst“ wurde. Die meisten der Rezensionen, Originalbeiträge und Interviews scheint der Rezensent mit Gewinn gelesen zu haben, etwa Michael Brenners Beitrag, der von einer Debatte über Finkelstein jedoch letztlich abrät: Wissenschaftler und Journalisten `sollten sich keinen Dialog über absurde Thesen aufzwingen lassen`, zitiert der Rezensent. „Überzogen“ findet Rürup jedoch die Ansicht Arne Behrensens, der im `Subtext in Artikeln der nicht-rechtsradikalen Presse` Verwandtschaft mit Tönen in der `National-Zeitung` diagnostiziert – auch wenn der Rezensent den Überblick, den Behrensen zur Debatte zur `Holocaust-Industrie` insgesamt als durchaus „informativ“ bewertet.


Via http://www.perlentaucher.de/buch/norman-g-finkelstein/die-holocaust-industrie.html

Widerhall,Karl-Heinz Heubaum,Rolf Winkler,Sylvia Stolz,Guenter Deckert,Holocaust-Bestreitung,Ernst Zuendel,§ 130,Ketzer-Prozesse,Selbstleseverfahren,Redefreiheit,Gedankenfreiheit,Gedankenverbrechen,.

Wer sich über den Komplex der Mannheimer Holocaust-Prozesse gegen Ernst Zündel, Germar Rudolf und Sylvia Stolz ein umfassendes Bild machen will, der ist mit dem diesbezüglichen Buch von Günter Deckert sehr gut bedient. Aus eigener Anschauung berichtet Deckert aus dem Gerichtssaal mit treffenden und ausführlichen Kommentaren. Das Buch „Die Mannheimer ‚Ketzer‘-Prozesse“ ist kartoniert mit 304 Seiten erschienen im Selbstverlag Günter Deckert, Postfach 100 245, D-69442 Weinheim an der Bergstraße, ePost: guenter.deckert(A)gmx.de und kostet einschließlich Versand 21,95 Euro. Es ist ein Lehrstück über die Rede- und Gedankenfreiheit im „freiheitlichsten“ Staat, den es angeblich je auf deutschem Boden gegeben hat.
Karl-Heinz Heubaum

via Widerhall,Karl-Heinz Heubaum,Rolf Winkler,Sylvia Stolz,Guenter Deckert,Holocaust-Bestreitung,Ernst Zuendel,§ 130,Ketzer-Prozesse,Selbstleseverfahren,Redefreiheit,Gedankenfreiheit,Gedankenverbrechen,..