EssaysSteven Romer

Denying Holocaust Denial

by Thomas Dalton, PhD.

ON April 8, it was announced that Canada would soon be joining an illustrious club: the enlightened nations of the world that have elected to ban so-called Holocaust denial. Depending on how one interprets the law, there are currently 18 nations that either explicitly ban “Holocaust denial” (including Germany, Austria, France, Israel, Italy, Poland, Hungary, and Russia) or generically ban “denial of genocide” (Switzerland and Lichtenstein). Canada would then be the nineteenth nation in this honor roll of obsequiousness.

Canada’s action comes not long after the UN General Assembly approved a related resolution, A/76/L.30, on 22 January 2022, “condemning” such denial. (The resolution was passed “by consensus,” meaning that no actual affirmative votes were cast. Evidently no country had the courage to demand a rollcall vote.)

The text of Canada’s bill is apparently unavailable—it seems that it will be buried in a larger spending bill—but the UN resolution has some interesting remarks. It first defines the Holocaust as an event “which resulted in the murder of nearly 6 million Jews, 1.5 million of whom were children.” This is notable because it codifies in international law the infamous ‘6 million’ figure—a number which is doomed to eventual collapse, given the dearth of evidence. Also, I know of no source for the “1.5 million children,” but a lack of substantiation has never stopped our intrepid authorities in the past, and it surely won’t here.

The resolution goes on to describe what it means by Holocaust denial:

Holocaust denial refers to discourse and propaganda that deny the historical reality and the extent of the extermination of the Jews by the Nazis and their accomplices during the Second World War. … Holocaust denial refers specifically to any attempt to claim that the Holocaust did not take place, and may include publicly denying or calling into doubt the use of principal mechanisms of destruction (such as gas chambers, mass shooting, starvation, and torture) or the intentionality of the genocide of the Jewish people.

As usual, such wording is a combination of ambiguity and meaninglessness. First, no revisionist claims that the Holocaust “did not take place”—if by this we are to understand that no one, no Jews, actually died. No revisionist calls into doubt that mass shootings of Jews occurred, nor that many Jews suffered from starvation and “torture.” They do, however, specifically challenge the idea that homicidal gas chambers were used to murder masses of people, and they do question the actual intentionality of Hitler and other leading National Socialists to literally kill the Jews.

This requires a bit of elaboration. On the first point, Zyklon-B (cyanide) chambers as instruments of mass murder face a large number of major technical problems, including (a) infeasibility of rapid, mass gassing; (b) personal danger to the alleged gassers; (c) inability to remove gas and Zyklon pellets after gassing; (d) inability to remove gas-soaked corpses; and (e) inability to dispose of masses of corpses in any reasonable time. Worse still are the so-called “diesel exhaust” gas chambers, which are alleged to have killed some 2 million Jews—twice the number of the infamous Zyklon chambers. (If this is news to you, you need to do some research.) These chambers allegedly relied on captured Russian diesel engines to produce fatal carbon monoxide gas. However, (a) diesels actually produce very little CO, far too little to kill masses of people in any reasonable time; (b) diesel engines cannot pump exhaust gas into sealed, “air-tight” rooms; and (c) the corpses at those alleged camps showed no sign of CO poisoning—namely, a pink or bright-red coloration of the skin. If the traditional advocates of the Holocaust were serious about defending their view, they would start by addressing these obvious questions. Instead, they ignore them, and retreat to legal remedies.

On the question of intentionality, the actual words of Hitler, Goebbels, and others matter. They often spoke of the Vernichtung (‘destruction’) or Ausrottung (‘rooting-out’) of Jews, but these terms do not require the mass-killing of the people in question. We know this because, first, the Germans used these very terms for years, decades, in public, long before anyone claims that a “Holocaust” had begun; clearly, they meant little more than ending Jewish dominance in society and driving most Jews out of the nation. Secondly, the Germans consistently used other language that explicitly called for deportation, evacuation, and mass removal of Jews—ethnic cleansing perhaps, but not mass murder. Thirdly, we have innumerable examples of other Western leaders, from Bush to Obama to Trump, who have similarly spoken publicly of “destroying” or “annihilating” their enemies (usually Arabs or Muslims) without implying mass murder. Tough talk has always played well for politicians, and the Germans were no different.

The UN resolution continues with some specifics on the definition of denial:

[D]istortion and/or denial of the Holocaust refers, inter alia, to:

(a) Intentional efforts to excuse or minimize the impact of the Holocaust or its principal elements, including collaborators and allies of Nazi Germany,

(b) Gross minimization of the number of the victims of the Holocaust in contradiction to reliable sources,

(c) Attempts to blame the Jews for causing their own genocide,

(d) Statements that cast the Holocaust as a positive historical event,

(e) Attempts to blur the responsibility for the establishment of concentration and death camps devised and operated by Nazi Germany by putting blame on other nations or ethnic groups.

Four of these points—“excuse or minimize impact,” “blame the Jews,” “cast the Holocaust in positive light,” and “attempts to blur responsibility”—are all but irrelevant to serious revisionism. Serious revisionists, including Germar Rudolf, Carlo Mattogno, and Jurgen Graf, among others, virtually never discuss such things. They focus on far more pragmatic matters: the infeasibility of the mass gassing schemes, the lack of corpses or other physical evidence, the absence of photographic or documentary evidence showing mass murder, and the many logical inconsistencies of witnesses and survivors. But our fine Holocaust traditionalists never raise these troublesome issues, because they know that they have no reply.

Of the five points, only (b), “gross minimization of the number of victims,” is relevant—in other words, the questioning of the “6 million.” But what counts as “gross minimization”? Does ‘5 million’ count? If so, noted (and deceased) orthodox researcher Raul Hilberg would be quickly tarred with the “anti-Semite” label; the fact that he hasn’t suggests otherwise. What about ‘4 million’? If so, then early researcher Gerald Reitlinger is in for trouble; he long advocated around 4.2 million Jewish deaths. Does ‘3 million’ count? Or ‘2 million’? Or will we “know it when we see it”? For the record, serious revisionists today estimate that around 500,000 Jews died in total at the hands of the Nazis—most of these due to typhus contracted in the various camps, many in assorted shootings at the Eastern front, and virtually none in “homicidal gas chambers.”

So what, exactly, does the UN want from the world? As we read in the text, the UN

  1. Rejects and condemns without any reservation any denial of the Holocaust as a historical event, either in full or in part;
  2. Urges all Member States to reject without any reservation any denial or distortion of the Holocaust as a historical event, either in full or in part, or any activities to this end;
  3. Commends those Member States which have actively engaged in preserving those sites that served as Nazi death camps, concentration camps, forced labour camps, killing sites and prisons during the Holocaust…
  4. Urges Member States to develop educational programmes that will inculcate future generations with the lessons of the Holocaust in order to help to prevent future acts of genocide…
  5. Urges Member States and social media companies [!] to take active measures to combat antisemitism and Holocaust denial or distortion by means of information and communications technologies, and to facilitate reporting of such content;
  6. Requests the United Nations outreach programme on the Holocaust as well as all relevant United Nations specialized agencies to continue to develop and implement programmes aimed at countering Holocaust denial and distortion…

Of course, if we wish to designate the loss of some 500,000 Jews as a “holocaust,” then we are welcome to do so. But we had best get our facts and arguments straight. To resort to legal prohibitions is tantamount to admitting defeat.

None of these points were lost on a Jewish Boston Globe columnist, Jeff Jacoby. He was motivated to write a short op-ed entitled “It’s a mistake to ban Holocaust denial” (24 April). He quotes Canada’s public safety minister, Marco Mendicino: “There is no place for antisemitism and Holocaust denial in Canada.” Despite agreeing with this view, and despite “despising” Holocaust deniers, Jacoby opposes the pending law. And he explains why—though not before displaying an embarrassing ignorance and an appalling shallowness.

He first informs us that Holocaust “deniers” (never defined) are “contemptible antisemites and brazen liars,” overflowing with “Jew-hatred” and seeking to “rehabilitate the reputation of Hitler.” They attempt to refute “the most comprehensively documented crime in history” by insisting that it “never occurred.” Such people deserve “all the obloquy and contempt” that one can muster, he says. To call such claims unjustified and unwarranted is an understatement of the first order; the reliance here on ad hominem attacks is a sure sign of an impending vapidity of argumentation.

Still, Jacoby opposes anti-denial laws on two grounds. First, such laws run afoul of the spirit of the First Amendment (free speech and press). More broadly, he rightly notes that “it’s dangerous to empower the state to punish ideas.” Indeed, “any government that can criminalize Holocaust denial this week can criminalize other opinions next week.” Left unspoken, though, is a key point: How is it that in Canada, a 1% minority of Canadian Jews are able to push through a law that specifically benefits them? One would think that, in Canada, a 1% Jewish minority would have, say, half the clout of the 2% minority of American Jews. But clearly not. Canadian Jews are about to prevail yet again.

Jacoby’s second reason for opposing such laws is that, as I noted above, they amount to “intellectual surrender.” He quotes Holocaust scion Deborah Lipstadt to the effect that such laws imply that one is unable to construct a rational argument in defense of the traditional view. And this, in fact, is true. Just look at any traditionalist account of the Holocaust, even by the most learned academician. Look at any commentary on Holocaust denial. None will address the basic issues that I cited above. None will mention a single recent revisionist book, or a single active researcher, such as Rudolf, Mattogno, or Graf. None will examine or refute a single relevant revisionist argument. None will provide a breakdown, by cause, of the infamous “6 million” deaths. These are telling facts.

For his part, Jacoby obviously has no answer. All he can do is make flat and baseless assertions: “never was a genocide more meticulously recorded by its perpetrators … or more comprehensively described by scholars and survivors”; “an immense ocean of evidence attests to the horror of the Holocaust.” Unwisely, he attempts to use General Eisenhower’s “visual evidence … of starvation, cruelty, and bestiality” to defend his point. But this fails; as he likely is unaware, Eisenhower’s 550-page postwar memoir, Crusade in Europe (1948), has not a single reference to any Holocaust, gas chambers, or Auschwitz. A single paragraph in the book (p. 439) states only that the Jews “had been beaten, starved, and tortured.” One finds absolutely no mention of mass murder, extermination, gassing, crematoria, or the like. Eisenhower is hardly a good witness for the defense. (For what it’s worth, neither Churchill’s nor De Gaulle’s postwar memoirs had any mention of Auschwitz, gas chambers, or extermination either. Ike was no anomaly.)

But does all this really matter? What’s the big deal about the Holocaust? some may say. In fact, it is hugely important. The Holocaust is the lynchpin of Jewish power. It is the raison d’etre of the state of Israel. It is the number one guilt-tool used against Whites everywhere. And it is the embodiment of Jewish narcissism. When that story crumbles, the whole Judeocratic edifice may well fall, too. We should never underestimate the power of Holocaust revisionism; the Jews certainly don’t.

A final thought: I’m happy to hear that Jeff Jacoby believes in free speech. It’s too bad that he doesn’t have equally strong feelings about openness and honesty, about the many problems with the Holocaust story, and about a global Jewish Lobby that is able to pass laws, ban books, and impose a cancel culture on anyone that it doesn’t like. Now, that would be an op-ed worth reading.

* * *

Source: Occidental Observer

Thomas Dalton, PhD, has authored or edited several books and articles on politics, history, and religion, with a special focus on National Socialism. His works include a new translation series of Mein Kampf, and the books Eternal Strangers (2020), The Jewish Hand in the World Wars (2019), and Debating the Holocaust (4th ed, 2020). He has edited a new edition of Rosenberg’s classic Myth of the 20thCentury and a new book of political cartoons, Pan-Judah!. All these works are available at For all his writings, see his personal Web site

You can support National Vanguard by buying Dr. Dalton’s works through Cosmotheist Books.

Previous post

The Improbable We Do at Once

Next post

Beyond Hate

Notify of
Inline Feedback
View all comments
Reichsfürst von T.
Reichsfürst von T.
20 May, 2022 4:01 am

The question is why people are so passive about these restrictions. I don’t know of a single case where masses of people have taken to the streets to protest such a law.
Mainly because they are convinced that Hitler and the Nazis were a threat to themselves, not just to the Jews, and they are not interested in defending the truth in the interests of their enemy.
They generally have an aversion to revisionist historians of this period.

eric smith
eric smith
Reply to  Reichsfürst von T.
20 May, 2022 9:53 am

The truth is the jews are the most ruthless, violent ethnicity to ever walk the face of the earth. Even the Aztecs cannot compare. People everywhere live in fear of crossing them. This is the horrible truth of the matter. JFK is the touchstone in this in many ways. The only confirmed parties involved in the sordid event were both jews, Zapruder and Rubenstien. Oswald was innocent as he clearly and calmly stated. All else is just conjecture.

Reply to  Reichsfürst von T.
20 May, 2022 10:21 am

@Reichfurst von T.

Allas, all in your comment is correct when it comes to propaganda/established truth in Western Europe!

The Poles however have their own version of truth. One hardly finds one single Pole who would question the established – and nowadays even wider than ever – promoted version of history before and after WWII. What differs is their opinion on the ethnicity of those “millions” that the “horrible” Germans had “gassed”. According to State/government propaganda many of the victims in German “death” camps were ethnic Poles. And the alternative media in Poland takes it even further, claiming that the major part of the “gassed” actually were Slavs. People in Poland definitely are competing with the chosenites on the “crucial” matter of who has “earned” the perpetual victimhood.

Reichsfürst von T.
Reichsfürst von T.
Reply to  Lucy
21 May, 2022 9:39 am

These are exclusive Polish stories. The Poles have been very assertive in promoting their national interests (as in September 1939).
In Bohemia we don’t dare contradict the Jewish version. But we dare to follow them into the gas chambers (like their tails). According to the Czech myth, the Czechs should have been next. This privilege is very important to us!
In early May we celebrated the heroic resistance of Prague against the German occupiers in 1945. And now we are preparing to celebrate the anniversary of the murder of our Reichsprotektor and architect of the “Endlösung”.

Reply to  Reichsfürst von T.
20 May, 2022 12:48 pm

The question is why people are so passive about these restrictions. I don’t know of a single case where masses of people have taken to the streets to protest such a law.”

Or because the govn. will imprison you…

20 May, 2022 12:46 pm

“Denying Holocaust Denial”
What do you mean the Holocaust Didn’t happen ?? Look around you – White people are going extinct !

Walt Hampton
Walt Hampton
20 May, 2022 1:30 pm

I find interesting in that this
item does mention the “…one
percent minority of Canadian
Jews…” Although never have 
personally visited Canada, I 
can attest to the probable fact
that a substantial majority 
of these Jews make up the 
infestation along Toronto’s 
Church Street.

It is here that these despicable
and wretched excuses for human
beings openly display their
perversions and hatred of all
things normal and healthy. The
contemptable creatures are not
only protected – they are actually
encouraged by Canadian Law. If
you call into question any of
these disgusting degenerates, you
are eventually bound over to
something called the Human Rights

Once there you will be considered
“fair game,” and will do a 
significant amount of time 
in a Canadian prison.

Steve Carlson
Steve Carlson
20 May, 2022 9:19 pm

So what happens if you say you don’t give a damn if or how many Jews died in the “Holocaust?” Does that qualify as “Holocaust denial?” If so, then people have to pretend to be horrified even if they’re not. This is becoming increasingly ridiculous.

Patrick Pappano
Patrick Pappano
21 May, 2022 6:40 am

I find it interesting that “The Jews” defend the holocaust narrative so vehemently when all it is is narrative, as if narrative counted. But apparently it does, because left unspoken is Jewish control of the narrative through all media, education, books, movies, television, comic books, etc. There is no source of narrative that is left to chance. So take a lesson, if the Jews think narrative is important, and they control the narrative, where does that leave non-Jews? Sucking up the Jewish narrative and as the author points out, loving it. Hey, how about Tom Hanks in Saving Private Ryan? All those Goyim over in Europe saving the Jews because the Jews had the narrative – Germany bad, Hitler evil.

Reply to  Patrick Pappano
7 June, 2022 8:27 am

they have to defend it. once people see the holohoax for what it is – effectively a veil drawn across the multi-fronts war they’re waging against the entire rest of humanity (starting the world wars, the communist murder system, suppressing cancer cures for 100+ years, etc) – they’re finished. the death toll of goy cattle at the hands of jews is only eclipsed by the death toll of actual cattle (& every other animal) at our hands. there won’t be a single country in the world that’ll want anything to do with them

Jim - National Alliance Staff
Jim - National Alliance Staff
Reply to  david
7 June, 2022 6:51 pm

People in general will not “see” the holohoax in any way except by the loudest and most persistent voices presenting their version. In other words, if you want most to see that it was an extremely overblown event that has nearly become a religion, a mass media to rival that of the Jews must be built. For that, having established communities all on the same page in locations numbering hundreds or thousands on this or any continent would be needed first. The only community builders looking to accomplish such tasks I see are that within the National Alliance.

Steve Carlson
Steve Carlson
21 May, 2022 2:51 pm

“The Nazis killed six million Jews.” People are appalled when they hear this. But what if it were phrased differently? What if we heard, “The Nazis killed six million Magnus Hirschfelds, Alan Ginsburgs, Max Horkheimers, Herbert Marcuses, Stanley Eisenmans, and Susan Sontags.” The thought that a lot of us would have in response is, “Good riddance.”

“But the Nazis’ victims weren’t all like those people!,” conservatives will object.

No? Then please explain to me why we never ever hear or read of Jews criticizing those individuals. Why do they only praise them? If the Jews are really so different from one another, then why do they all have the same heroes?

Natman Whyt
Natman Whyt
21 May, 2022 5:14 pm

the only holocaust that occured in WW2 was that of White Germans by the hands and bombs of the Allies and Soviet Union

Reply to  Natman Whyt
7 June, 2022 8:31 am

the burnt offering of dresden? for sure. there’s a story in tolkein about kin-slayings but the 20th century has now given us a much bloodier selection of our own. & dresden the capital of saxony as well!!!! what the f**k was britain doing? we bombed the home of our ancestors (at least some of them)

Hitler's Ghost
Hitler's Ghost
23 May, 2022 9:43 am

Mass shootings of jews by National Socialists did not occur either. I would have expected National Vanguard of all places not to be pozzed, but I guess it is.

Bela Lagosi's Dead
Bela Lagosi's Dead
Reply to  Hitler's Ghost
29 May, 2022 10:40 pm

Indeed. Mass shootings have always been a strictly jew commissar thing, as demonstrated by their little party at Katyn, where the Soviets mass executed millions of Polish soldiers, and blamed it on the Germans, then finally admitted it. From the Katyn Forest, to Columbine High School. A jew thing.

29 May, 2022 5:13 pm

No Evidence Of Genocide(Concentration Camps) One of the most important aspects of the Red Cross Report is that it clarifies the true cause of those deaths that undoubtedly occurred in the camps toward the end of the war. Says the Report: “In the chaotic condition of Germany after the invasion during the final months of the war, the camps received no food supplies at all and starvation claimed an increasing number of victims. Itself alarmed by this situation, the German Government at last informed the ICRC on February 1st, 1945 … In March 1945, discussions between the President of the ICRC and General of the S.S. Kaltenbrunner gave even more decisive results. Relief could henceforth be distributed by the ICRC, and one delegate was authorised to stay in each camp… Read more »