the tabu against questioning the Holocaust

Why can there be subjects of historical inquiry that are off limits?

It is currently illegal in many European nations to question the official or generally accepted account of the holocaust of European Jewry during the Second World War.  This is no distortion nor exaggeration.  European readers are well aware of these restrictions.

Our purpose here is not to dissect the official holocaust story, but rather to question the possible reasons or motivations for restricting objective and open inquiry into the official history of the holocaust, and stifling open discussions of the results of such inquiries that are made.



A lengthy read, best read on a tablet or desk top computer.

A few words of background may prove helpful at this juncture.  We have read books and articles from both camps or factions, that of the official historians, and that of the revisionist historians.  One thing to be aware of is that much of the official history is written by authors that did their research at libraries reading the accounts of others and accepting these as true without question. This describes one tome we read in late 1988.  The Holocaust: The Destruction of European Jewry 1933 – 1945, by Nora Levin (copyright 1968 by the author, first Schocken Books edition 1973, 768 pages).  Many, many footnotes and several referenced sources, but the author did not visit the sites in question.  True, during the 1960s, it was difficult for Western authors to travel to communist controlled Poland.  Nevertheless, for a thorough and rigorous review and verification (vetting) of the history, on site, forensic examinations are necessary.  Otherwise, authors run the risk of merely repeating the unverified claims of other writers.  There are revisionist authors who have actually been on site at the alleged death camps since the fall of communism in the early 1990s.  When on site examinations fail to support previous official claims, or actually cast doubt on these, uncomfortable questions arise.  And, this is the problem independent researchers and revisionist historians (to revise the recorded or official history to bring it into accord with the facts) face.  Their written works chronicling their research and investigations are banned in many countries, and they face possible imprisonment for speaking publicly about their research findings when these contradict the official history of the holocaust.  One wonders why.

Bear in mind, as you read on, that the post communist government of Poland replaced the prior official plaque at Auschwitz-Birkenau with a new one in 1992.  The new total of deaths at the camp complex is about one and one half (1.5) million, down from 4 million previously.  Similarly, newspaper reports in 1945 for Majdanek (death camp or work camp?) in the Lublin area claimed that 1.5 million persons were killed there, of which a significant portion were Jews.  (Even Wikipedia says “The Soviets initially overestimated the number of deaths . . .”  Why did they?  For sensationalist or propaganda purposes?) This figure has been walked back over the years and is now down considerably (per Wikipedia):  “The 2005 research by the Head of Scientific Department at Majdanek Museum, historian Tomasz Kranz indicated that there were 79,000 victims, 59,000 of whom were Jews.”  In some revisionist articles, the total figure for deaths at Majdanek from all causes is put at approximately 38,000 – a staggering reduction from 1.5 million.  So, we can see that even the official history has been revised multiple times.  Yet, it appears that the universally known total figure of 6 million Jewish deaths during the holocaust must be maintained.  Thus, estimates for death camp, Belzec (in southern Poland),  now cover a very wide range from 600,000 to 3 million.  (Such a very wide range in the estimates invites scrutiny.)  And, some attention is shifting from the death camps of occupied Poland to the mobile killing squads, einzatsgruppen, that followed on the heels of the advancing German armies in the Soviet Union hunting out and killing any and all Jews they found in the summer of 1941.

I could never understand how open inquiry and open discussion of the holocaust could incite hatred of Jewish people.  This is one of the reasons given for restricting such inquiries and discussions.  Also, calling for free and open inquiry and conducting relevant research does not constitute so-called “holocaust denial”, but rather a search for historical truth.

Why is it tabu to question the official story of the holocaust?  Such a tabu that is enforced by legal sanction in many countries must be for important reasons one might think.  One cannot help considering the following question.  If the official story is “debunked” who loses?  If the official story is true, accurate and factual, further examinations of its claims would involve no risk.  Indeed, further and more scrupulous investigations and examinations would serve to verify and thereby strengthen the official account – if it is true.  Why fear such inquiries?  One possible conclusion is that those who promote the official history of the holocaust stand to lose as further and more critical scrutiny will expose the official history as being inaccurate and to a degree, false.

What would this mean?  Possibly, several things.

The justification for the modern state of Israel would lose some of its legitimacy in the public’s eyes.  Much positive public sentiment at the time in favor of the creation of Israel in 1948 was based on widespread sympathy for a people who had suffered such terrible losses in the holocaust.  If there were millions fewer Jewish deaths, much of the legitimacy would be eroded.  As well, Jews would not be viewed as perpetual victims, but could be viewed and treated as any other people of the world are without any special considerations nor preferential treatment.  Indeed, Jews active in public life throughout the world could be given greater scrutiny and would be less able to hide behind the charge of “anti-Semitism” if they are found to be involved in nefarious activities.

The German people could throw off the collective guilt that they have been burdened with now for 70 plus years.

The exclusivity or special nature of Jewish suffering would be abandoned allowing for a fuller appreciation of the suffering of other peoples during World War II and across the world in the decades since the end of the war.

A more critical look at the Allies and their conduct before, during and after the war could occur among official or court historians. This has long been occurring in revisionist history circles.  Such a re-evaluation of the Allies and their actions could yield a better understanding of how and why wars get started and how to avoid wars in the first place.

Enough.  We have previously written on how the official holocaust history has been used.   From July, 2014:

a critical look at how the holocaust (of European Jewry) has been used and other relevant questions


Given that there is so much incorrect information, so much misinformation and disinformation surrounding this topic, we are led to pose the following questions.  (Today, it is not only the holocaust that is confounded by so much that is false, distorted or exaggerated.  Propaganda, fake news and anti fake news that is itself fake (false) burdens our discourse and thinking on so many issues.)

Can objective truth be found?  Can objective truth be known?  These, perhaps, are questions for philosophers and not historians.  What is truth?  Is it merely what people can be led or made to believe?

There are bloggers that scoff at and ridicule revisionists, and dismiss their work out of hand as being motivated by hate.  It is doubtful that these folks have even read anything written by revisionists, many of whom are only motivated by an honest search for the truth of what actually occurred or did not occur in the past.

Each adult citizen will have to make up his or her mind as to what to believe or not believe about the holocaust.  But, we do not think that dissenting authors ought be silenced, or risk imprisonment and/or heavy financial penalties (fines) for writing about their research and what they have found and not found as to the veracity of the official account.  If the official story has merit and is historically accurate, those who promote it have nothing to fear by more rigorous research including, but not limited to, the forensic examinations of the death camps in Poland, and the review of the extensive German records and documents seized by the Soviets in the final months of the war now in the former Soviet Archives in Moscow.

Dear readers, we only present the reality of the dilemma to you as a catalyst for critical thinking.


other related items

We recall reading in the national edition of the New York Times back in early 1989 or early 1990 (I will have to dig through my hardcopy files to find which year exactly it was) about cities in the Ukraine that were having their prewar Jewish population figures revised upwards (perhaps this came about through Gorbachev’s glasnost of the late 1980s).  The conclusion drawn by the newspaper article’s writer was that the total Jewish death toll from the holocaust would have to be revised upwards to perhaps 7 million (from the universally known 6 million).  It is this default, automatic, reflexive assertion – that if there had been more Jews living in conquered and captured areas prior to the war, then this means that there must have been more Jewish persons killed by the Germans and their allies during the war –  that is so troubling.  In the cases of cities in the Ukraine, many Jews were evacuated (as they were Communist Party officials or relatives of these) or fled deeper into the Soviet Union before the Germans arrived.  Bear in mind that it is estimated that 500,000 Jews died in battle during the course of the war as Red Army soldiers.  So, yes, Jews were killed by the Germans – on the battlefield as military personnel or combatants.  And, yes, Jewish communist partisans, in civilian clothes conducting warfare behind the lines against the German armies, were killed by the Germans.

Now there is a movie (with mixed reviews) in some theatres, Bitter Harvest, that tells of the Holodomor or Ukrainian manmade famine of 1932-3. This famine resulted in millions of deaths by starvation.  It is past time that this atrocity of Josef Stalin receive more widespread attention and scrutiny.  The vast majority of victims were non-Jews.

The Ukrainian Archives was a website some years back that was forced to shut down.  The owner of the site, Lubomyr Prytulak (likely an alias), lived in Canada and ran afoul of the authorities for being very critical of some of the Jewish promoters of the official holocaust story.  He was Ukrainian and was rather upset that Ukrainians were slandered as being “anti-Semitic” and were frequently being vilified as being sadistic, even vicious death camp guards.  I can remember in some of the lengthy posts on his site (1999 – 2001) he deconstructed various claims about the death camps in occupied Poland.  He did not believe that inmates were electrocuted at Belzec (literally dancing on an electrified metal plate until they were electrocuted).  In one post taking on the official (and often repeated) figure of 870,000 deaths at the infamous Treblinka camp, northeast of Warsaw, he said that perhaps 870 Jews had perished at Treblinka, or perhaps only 87. *  Obviously, if questioning the official account of the holocaust is legally prohibited, forbidden or merely tabu, this kind of writing (available on the Internet to a potentially worldwide audience) cannot be endured nor tolerated.

* He was likely considering that the official account of the mass burial of several hundred thousand human bodies with subsequent exhumation and mass cremation on large pyres of wood from surrounding forests to be too far-fetched to be believed, that such an account beggared belief.  As well, he was aware at the time he was writing that there had been no serious forensic examinations of the soil at Treblinka.  (A limited British (pro-official history) examination several years back headed by Dr. Caroline Sturdy Colls did find a pit (assumed for burials) but the area examined was quite small and in no way could account for such numbers of corpses.  There are many problems with Dr. Colls’ limited on site examination and analysis, not the least of which is the apparent desire on her part to interpret any remains or artifacts found as supporting her personal conviction that Treblinka camps I and II were extermination centers on a large-scale.  Other serious flaws were researcher bias, preconceived conclusions, and not objectively evaluating the evidence to see where it may lead.  But, I digress.)  Even after several decades, cross cutting the soil to depth at various points on the camp grounds would serve to ascertain the prior existence of such large mass graves.  Soil engineers with present day technology could help us to get to the truth at this (death or transit) camp.

In recent years, with the observations of psychologists, we can see that “eye-witness” testimony must now be viewed cautiously and with some skepticism. This is not to deny that deportations occurred in many countries.  This is not to trivialize the real suffering that survivors no doubt endured in concentration camps.  And, this is not to deny that some Jews did die in these camps.  That was terrible.  But, there is a very significant difference between harsh treatment and privation in a concentration camp and being resident in and surviving an extermination or “death” camp.  The fidelity to the truth of eye-witness testimony, the veracity of eye-witness testimony is an emotionally charged and controversial topic to be sure.  But, exaggeration for various and sundry reasons, and the distortions caused to memory by the lapse of decades from the time of the events recalled cannot be casually dismissed out of hand.

copyright 2017 –

21 thoughts on “the tabu against questioning the Holocaust

  1. Well said!
    Just to underline your point Amazon has now crumbled under pressure and has stopped selling any books that question the “Holocaust”.
    Although the article in the link above says Amazon UK has removed just 3 books, I’ve just checked and it appears all holocaust revision books have been taken down. This kind of censorship speaks volumes to me. Why would “Truth” need such draconian measures for protection? Why would “Truth” need laws to silence and imprison people?
    At the moment you have free speech in the US. I mean you can say what you like and won’t get sent to prison for it, but question the holocaust and it’s career suicide, ostracism and vilification. Similarly in the UK holocaust denial per se is not a criminal offence yet but I think it is only a question of time before it is. I image it will come in the guise of “hate speech” laws and view anyone who raises questions on historical accuracy as an anti-Semite.
    Perhaps ebay and YouTube will be next will be next in line for re-eduction.
    And no doubt blogs on WordPress too will be selected for sonderbehandlung.

    • Thanks Giordano for your comment. I do not know where you live, so cannot address your specific situation as to local laws, but you can order many books on the holocaust from The Barnes Review. They only offer revisionist works on the holocaust, and in fact are actually the publisher of some of these hard to obtain books. They also offer books on other periods of history. As to YouTube, there are still a number of video clips and short films available about the holocaust – both pro and con.

      • Actually, I see in my email inbox a note from TBR describing what you mention above. Here I cut and paste a few paragraphs from their email newsletter:

        Israel’s official “holocaust” ™ museum, Yad Vashem, has finally succeeded in censoring the Internet by getting retail giant Amazon (CEO Jeff Bezos worth $66.5 billion) to completely remove all books dealing with holocaust revisionism from its virtual shelves.

        Yad Vashem singled out a number of books, but focused on one in particular: Peter Winter’s epic The Six Million: Fact or Fiction. It’s been wiped clean from Amazon, as if it never existed.

        That’s right: Thanks to pressure from the Zionist lobby, from this day forward, you will no longer be able to buy this book through Amazon, even though we have broken no U.S. laws. This is a clear violation of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.

        If you are not outraged, you ought to be. It’s a modern-day book-burning on a scale unheard of in recorded history—and that’s no exaggeration. More than 100 other related books were also banned in one fell swoop.

    • We do not have free speech in the USA. It’s true, you may not be imprisoned (yet) for voicing your opinions; but, you could risk your career, reputation, professional credentials, etc. Additionally, there are college campuses in the USA (beacons of free thought???) where you risk physical abuse by attempting to speak on specific topics. I can think of many areas of scientific investigation that would simply not be allowed (no grant money, no research support, etc.) in this country. And, if they were allowed and the findings didn’t support reality as defined by the boundaries of political correctness, such findings would either not be published or, if they were published, would subject the investigator to ridicule and ostracizing within the scientific community.

      • Thanks for your insightful comment. Yes, the ruling paradigm of the Left with its political correctness does stifle free inquiry on a number of fronts. Many individuals even engage in a form of self censorship and avoid “controversial” subjects or areas. The grant money does flow to those areas in favor such as so-called manmade global warming, or “gender” studies.

  2. You know what’s almost as bad? There’s a wikipedia article that was made just for the express purpose of ‘debunking’ the ‘Kosher tax conspiracy.’

    From Pepsi, to Oreos, to Tilamook cheese, all have the Kosher symbol on them. I don’t see any ‘latino’ brands of approval, or ‘anglo’ seals of quality, or ‘Oriental’ certifications of authenticity.

    Nope, must be just me and my tinfoil hat conspiracies!

    Good article here!

  3. Rudolf Reder was a damned liar!! I am currently reading a book that refutes the official story of homicidal gassings at Belzec camp. This book is: Belzec in Propaganda, Testimonies, Archeological Research & History, by Carlo Mattogno. Mattogno shows that even during the war there were fantastical claims made about this alleged extermination camp and the diverse methods of murder allegedly used there. It was not until after the war, that the official history settled on asphyxiation by diesel exhaust gas (gas chambers) as the method of murder at this camp resulting in the deaths of at least 600,000 persons (all of whom are alleged to have been Jews). However, such assertions do not withstand critical analysis because of extremely limited and contradictory “eyewitness” testimony, and lack of both documentary evidence and supporting forensic evidence from excavations conducted in the late 1990s at the site of the camp.

    Reder (born 1881) lied. We quote from the above book on p. 74:

    “In a declaration made before the Jewish historical commission in 1945, Reder stated:

    ‘A grave was 100 m long and 25 m wide. A single grave contained about 100,000 persons. In November 1942 there were 30 graves, i.e. 3 million corpses.’

    . . . . . . . .

    “As for Reder’s testimony, the total surface area of the 30 graves he claims to have seen in the camp (7.5 hectares) would have covered more ground than the camp itself (6.2 hectares)!”

    We note that there are many and diverse reasons for why such “eye witnesses” will lie, make fabricated statements.

    Also, Jan Karski lied about having covertly visited Belzec in 1942, and made up war time atrocity propaganda during the war when he reported fantastic (and false) claims to the Polish government in exile in London beginning in late 1942.

    Belzec was a transit camp, as the German documents (records) indicate, and not a “death” camp.

    The holocaust is appearing more and more as being a monstrous lie, a grotesque fraud perpetrated on the peoples of the post war world by a self interested people that has no moral inhibitions about lying on a very grand scale.

    For me, it is becoming clear that the true, the real “holocaust” was what was done to the Germans (both civilians and disarmed POWs) in the closing months of the war, and in the years immediately after the war as recounted in Other Losses, by James Bacque.

  4. A Truth will always welcome its questioning, as the latter can only enhence its validity. Only sham stories are afraid of questioning and of cross examination.

    When questioning the H-co$t is prohibited by authorities then it is quite probable that there is NO SOLID truth in it!

  5. Pingback: the tabu against questioning the Holocaust  | rudolfblog

  6. It has not been my particular interest to look into the holocaust and whether or not it occurred. But, to question the death toll of the holocaust and whether or not this event occurred altogether, should be allowed for private citizens and not banned by any European governments.

  7. I don’t know of any historian who believes the Jews were treated fairly in WWII. However, the facts do not align themselves with the official version. Obviously many died, most probably from the railroad cars. All of this is terrible, but it doesn’t make the method true of how we are told it happened. There should be nothing wrong in searching for the truth just as we demand in all other areas of history.

    • Thank you for your comment. I quite agree that the search for truth and the vetting of officially accepted history ought not be restricted or prohibited, nor should those who undertake such efforts automatically be condemned or vilified. The exaggerated, even sensational claims in the official story were a major stimulus for revisionists to give greater scrutiny to the holocaust story beginning in the mid 1970s.

      On the American Heroes Channel (AHC, part of the Discovery Channel network), they are now airing a series on “Nazi death squads”, the einsatzgruppen. The emphasis in official history circles may now be shifting away from the alleged death camps to these mobile killing squads on the eastern front. What is worth noting is that we hear from (taped interviews with) “witnesses” that the Germans dug up the bodies from mass graves and then burned these and pulverized the remaining bones so as to destroy the evidence of their crimes. Yet such open air burning of corpses is quite inefficient and requires very large amounts of wood as fuel. There is little hard evidence to support claims of mass killings because the Germans, late in the war, worked hard to destroy such evidence. To the skeptical, that appears very convenient, perhaps too convenient.

  8. Very well written article about the topic. My view of the holocaust, as I mentioned on my blog, and I think implied in your article too, is it’s actually difficult to voluntarily arrive at the mainstream view about it now anyway, because of the way Jews have abused the topic, and surrounded it by coercion. If we can’t come to an understanding of a topic without coercion, there is little point in coming to that understanding, and there is clearly a problem either with the narrative, or with the people presenting it.

    And the reason we hear so much about the holocaust is simply because Jews are politically aggressive and powerful.

    • Thanks for your comment. We have previously written on our blog about how the holocaust has been used and is being used today. There is definitely holocaust fatigue on the part of many. As to coercion surrounding the official narrative, one need only consider the recent “book burning” by Amazon of books by researchers that question the official account.

  9. Would it be OK if I cross-posted this article to I’ll be sure to give you complete credit as the author. There is no fee, I’m simply trying to add more content diversity for our community and I liked what you wrote. If “OK” please let me know via email.


    • What do you mean by “cross post” this article to another site? If you mean featuring a link to the article on this blog site, that is fine. But, we have copyrighted our writings, and except for brief quotes in reviews, we do not approve of copying our posts in their entirety.

      You can, as a WordPress blogger, reblog this post on your site.

Have anything to say?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s