The Political Implications of Holocaust Revisionism

By Paul Grubach

The traditional view of the fate of European Jewry during WWII (commonly known as the Holocaust) contains the following propositions. There was a Nazi plan to exterminate all the Jews; gas chambers were used to implement this plan; and approximately six million were murdered.

Holocaust revisionists do not deny that atrocities were committed against Jews during WWII. However, they contend there was no Nazi plan to exterminate European Jewry, the "Final Solution" being no more no less than their expulsion from Europe. The Nazis did have a system of concentration camps, but there were no gas chambers for mass murder in them. And finally, the claim of six million murdered Jews is an irresponsible exaggeration, as the number killed was far less.

Largely as a result of an advance in knowledge and the impact of the Internet, Holocaust revisionism has enjoyed phenomenal growth during the 1990s. In response an important book was recently published which attempts to refute it. DENYING HISTORY: WHO SAYS THE HOLOCAUST NEVER HAPPENED AND WHY DO THEY SAY IT?, written by gentile intellectual Michael Shermer and Jewish historian Alex Grobman, attempts to utterly discredit the entire revisionist movement.[1] (Hereafter, all page numbers in the body of this text refer to this book.)

This essay will focus upon Shermer and Grobman's claim of the alleged racist political implications of Holocaust revisionism. The opinions they express on the connection between the Holocaust doctrine and racial nationalism in general, simply reflect a dominant and influential school of thought of our time.

In the mid 1970s revisionist Richard Harwood noted the negative impact that the Holocaust doctrine had on nationalism in general, white nationalism in particular. In his booklet which received world-wide attention, Harwood pointed out "...the accusation of the Six Million [murdered Jews] is not only used to undermine the principle of nationhood and national pride, but threatens the survival of the [white] Race itself (p. 215)."

Harwood was claiming that the masses have been conditioned to think in terms of this chain of associations--white nationalism, white supremacy, racism, Hitlerism, Auschwitz, mass murder of minorities. So the reasoning continues: because White/European nationalism led to the Holocaust, Europeans should renounce nationalist separatism and integrate with non-Europeans. In this sense, Harwood concluded, the Holocaust doctrine is a threat to the survival of the European racial-cultural heritage.

Expressing a predominant "moral" judgment of our time, Shermer and Grobman condemn Harwood because he "maintains that immigration and assimilation lead to racial impurity and the destruction of Western culture, an argument of racist ideology found in many European countries and parts of America today (p. 215)."

Here Shermer and Grobman expose their own and a large part of the academic establishment's hypocritical double standard on racial matters. If it is a characteristic of "racism" to preserve the "racial purity" of one's own ethnic group, then history shows that organized Jewry can be labeled "racist." Commenting upon a major study of Jewish genetics published in the PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES, the NEW YORK TIMES noted: "The analysis provides genetic witness that these [Jewish] communities have, to a remarkable extent, retained their biological identity separate from their host populations, evidence of relatively little intermarriage or conversion into Judaism over the centuries."[2]

These findings are consistent with the claim that, historically, Jewish culture has been largely successful in preserving the "racial purity" of Jewry. You see, it is "right and moral" for Jews to remain separate from non-Jews and preserve their unique genetic identity, but it is "morally wrong" for gentiles to do the same--according to Shermer, Grobman and the Jewish-Zionist and gentile elites which they front for.

What is utterly ironic is that Arthur Hertzberg, Zionist intellectual and author of DENYING HISTORY's "Forward," once edited a book in which Theodore Herzl, the founder of modern Zionism, was quoted as follows: "I [Herzl] referred previously to our [Jewish] assimilation [with gentiles]. I do not for a moment wish to imply that I desire such an end. Our national character is too glorious in history and, in spite of every degradation, too noble to make its annihilation desirable."[3]

Get the picture? Hertzberg gives his endorsement to a book that condemns Europeans who oppose racial assimilation with non-Europeans. Yet, he edits a book that espouses an ideology which opposes Jewish racial assimilation with non-Jews. Herzl stated that Jewish assimilation with non-Jews would lead to the annihilation of the Jewish national character. By Shermer and Grobman's own moral criteria, Herzl is guilty of creating a racist ideology and Hertzberg is guilty of promoting it.

Consider the following statement by Jewish Middle East analyst, Mitchell Bard, made in Ohio's most important newspaper, THE PLAIN DEALER. "Most Israelis have argued that Israel cannot remain a Jewish state or a democracy if it incorporates the occupied territories, because Palestinians would alter the nation's demographic balance. The result would be a binational state in which Arabs would wield substantial power."[4] In more straightforward terms, most Israelis don't want to integrate or assimilate with Palestinians. No mainstream U.S. newspaper would criticize Israeli Jews on this point, nor would Shermer or Grobman.

If opposition to racial assimilation between ethnic groups is to be classified as "racism," the 1993 Jewish New Year's message of Israeli Prime Minister Shimon Peres was a racist message because it condemned the assimilation of Jews with non-Jews: "Let me begin by saying that the Jewish people in Israel share the deep concern of our fellow Jews throughout the world, over the demographic future of the Jewish people. The open pluralistic societies as well as less fortunate ones have given Jews opportunities to integrate; however, they have also posed the greatest challenge to the task of preserving our Jewish identity, the danger of assimilation."[5]

But neither Shermer nor Grobman would ever condemn this as a racist message, as Shermer is a gentile who derives immense benefit by collaborating with the Jewish power structure and Grobman is an ardent Zionist functionary. Indeed, Shermer admitted to this writer that he receives six figure advances for most of his books-tomes which reflect and serve a Jewish-Zionist agenda.[6] Although he received only a four figure advance for DENYING HISTORY, the book was favorably reviewed in important places.[7] This put Shermer in good stead for future lucrative book contracts, speaking engagements and academic positions.

Every ethnic group and culture has the right to self-determination and self-preservation. Just as it is morally acceptable for Jews to be concerned about the long-term survival of the Jewish people, so too, it should be acceptable for European/Caucasian groups to do likewise. The influx of large numbers of non-European immigrants into predominantly European nations does in fact present a threat to the European national identity, racial peace and national harmony.

There is another part to Shermer and Grobman's condemnation of Holocaust revisionism. They allege that many revisionists attempt to debunk the Holocaust because they want Nazism to supplant democracy. Our anti-revisionist authors write: "Without the Holocaust perhaps fascism would seem a more acceptable alternative to democracy (p.16)."

Long before there ever was a Jewish Holocaust legend, the majority of people of the Western democracies rejected totalitarian fascist movements, thus showing that fascism is NOT a more acceptable alternative to democracy in the minds of most European peoples.

What really lies behind Shermer and Grobman's condemnation of Holocaust revisionism?

In Israel, Zionism created an Athenian democracy for Jews, but second-class citizenship, even feudal servitude for non-Jews. Modern Israel is a racially segregated, apartheid state where Jews lord over non-Jews, especially Palestinian Arabs.[8]

Israel's declaration of independence asserts "the right of the Jewish people to be masters of their own fate, like all other nations, in their own sovereign nation."[9] And there is nothing inherently wrong with this. Like every other ethnic group the Jews have the right to self-determination and self-preservation. The problem is of course, that according to contemporary political mores, Jews are "allowed" to create a state in which Jews are the ruling and dominant ethnic group. Europeans however, "should" integrate with non-Europeans and live in multiracial states. And of course, Palestinians must remain subservient to Israeli-Jewish nationalism.

The French revisionist scholar, Dr. Robert Faurisson, in a span of a few short words, summed up the paradoxical political effect of the Holocaust ideology: "the 'Holocaust' myth condemn...all forms of nationalism and the national idea-except the Israeli and Zionist variety, which the myth, on the contrary, reinforces."[10]

Shermer and Grobman believe that extremists practice the "advocacy of double standards," and they feel no guilt or sense of wrongdoing when they behave this way (p.88). To which we should respond: "If the shoe fits, wear it." These hypocritical authors express no sense of wrongdoing for their advocacy of a racial double standard.

Shermer and Grobman are ideologues in the Marxist sense of the term. The hypocritical "moral" judgments they make simply reflect and serve the interests of the dominant Jewish-Zionist establishment and the gentile elites the former are aligned with. The ideological line that DENYING HISTORY espouses "justifies" and "legitimizes" a current existing social and political agenda. Namely, European peoples "should" forcibly integrate with non-Europeans, but Israel "should" remain a racially segregated state where Jews remain the dominant group.

White nationalism is based upon two propositions. European peoples are different from non-Europeans in a genetic and cultural sense. And, Europeans have a right to preserve their unique genetic and cultural heritage. White nationalism (as it is conceived here) is wholly compatible with a democratic society, and is not to be confused with Nazism or white supremacy.

It is important to note that the legitimacy of white nationalism is independent of the truth or falsity of Holocaust revisionism. Even if, for example, it were found that the Nazis did have a plan to exterminate Jewry, gas chambers were used to implement this plan, and six million Jews were murdered, white nationalism would still be a legitimate doctrine.

But as far as revisionist scholars expose the veil of illusions which compose the traditional Holocaust mythology, so they are destroying an ideological weapon that is used to undermine two legitimate nationalisms, European/Caucasian and Palestinian. In this sense, Holocaust revisionism is a revolutionary doctrine which will help destroy the hypocritical racial double standard which currently "justifies" the existing sociopolitical order. When this happens, a more just and rational world order can be created.

Copyright 2000


[1]Michael Shermer and Alex Grobman, DENYING THE HOLOCAUST: WHO SAYS THE HOLOCAUST NEVER HAPPENED AND WHY DO THEY SAY IT? (University of California Press, 2000).
[2]THE NEW YORK TIMES, May 9, 2000.
[3]Arthur Hertzberg, THE ZIONIST IDEA (Greenwood Press, 1959), pp.219-220.
[4]THE PLAIN DEALER, 19 January 1989, p.3-E.
[5]Quoted in Tony Martin, THE JEWISH ONSLAUGHT: DESPATCHES FROM THE WELLESLEY BATTLEFRONT (The Majority Press, 1993), p.69.
[6]Email from Michael Shermer to Paul Grubach, May 13, 2000. Printout in possession of Paul Grubach.
[8]Uri Davis, ISRAEL: AN APARTHEID STATE (Zed Books Ltd., 1987); Ian Lustick, ARABS IN THE JEWISH STATE: ISRAEL'S CONTROL OF A NATIONAL MINORITY (University of Texas Press, 1980).
[9]See Yoram Hazony, THE JEWISH STATE: THE STRUGGLE FOR ISRAEL'S SOUL (Basic Books, 2000), p.342.
[10]THE JOURNAL OF HISTORICAL REVIEW, January/February 2000, p.20.