Kurt Nimmo: Holocaust Denier
gehrig | 09.12.2007 23:18 | Anti-racism
1: The term "Holocaust denial"
First, let's make sure we know what we mean by "Holocaust denial." And let's go to the definitive source: let's take a look at the Irving judgment.
What does Irving the Holocaust denier say?
8.9 Amongst the assertions made by Irving which mark him out as a Holocaust denier, [WWII Historian Richard] Evans [expert witness in the trial] noted in particular the following: his claim that the number who "died" in Auschwitz, "most of them from epidemics", was 100,000; his claim made expressly or by implication that the Jews had brought the Holocaust upon themselves; his assertion that that the conduct of the Nazis in exterminating Jews could be excused by the fact that they or their families had suffered in the Allied bombing raids; the manner in which he dismissed the totality of the evidence of eye-witnesses from Auschwitz as unreliable because it is the product of mass hysteria; his claim, often repeated as will be seen, that the gas chambers at Auschwitz are a lie invented by British intelligence; his denunciation the diary of Ann Frank as a forgery or as a novel like Gone With the Wind; his claim that the myth of the Holocaust is the product of a well-financed campaign by Jewry to legitimise the substantial payments made by Germany to the state of Israel since the war. This claim has been made by Irving on several occasions including the launch of the English edition of the Leuchter report. The Defendants contend that Irving qualifies as a Holocaust denier and that his denial flies in the face of the totality of the evidence.
Did the court agree with the expert witness?
13.94 In addressing the question whether Irving is justifiably described as Holocaust denier, I make allowance for the fact that, when addressing live audiences as opposed to writing history books, Irving needed to hold the attention of his audience by expressing himself in a vivid and colourful style. I agree that it is necessary to take care to ensure that Irving is not quoted out of context. I accept that merely to question aspects of the Holocaust does not make a person a Holocaust denier. I recognise also that Irving came relatively late to the issue of the Holocaust: he claimed to have paid little attention to it before 1989.
13.95 Even so, it appears to me to be incontrovertible that Irving qualifies as a Holocaust denier. Not only has he denied the existence of gas chambers at Auschwitz and asserted that no Jew was gassed there, he has done so on frequent occasions and sometimes in the most offensive terms. . .
The fact is, the denial of the gas chambers at Auschwitz is one of the core tenets of Holocaust denial. Take a look, if you get the chance, at Errol Morris's documentary "Mr. Death: The Rise and Fall of Fred A. Leuchter" for an example of someone who used that claim -- that there were no homicidal gas chambers at Auschwitz -- as his meal ticket in Holocaust denial circles for years. You'll find it in Leuchter, in Faurisson, in Gaurady, in Zündel.
Sometimes you'll hear the argument that, well, someone isn't a Holocaust denier unless they totally deny every facet of the Holocaust, as if none of it happened. Well, there really isn't anybody who goes around saying that the Holocaust simply didn't happen; the evidence is just too clear. Instead the standard denier riff is to try to redefine it the Holocaust by taking away its central features -- the genocidal program, the death toll, and the use of homicidal gas chambers -- and then saying, "Yes, the Nazis were bad people who did bad things to the Jews, but they didn't gas them, didn't kill six million of them, and didn't try to wipe them out genocidally -- but don't call me a Holocaust denier."
Just to give you a sense of scale, in the most used of the gas chambers at Auschwitz, one called Krema II, half a million people were murdered. There is no other single room on earth in which so many have died. The gas chambers of Auschwitz are not just a minor detail of history whose existence or non-existence is a mere quibble in the margins of the story.
So when someone says that the gas chambers of Auschwitz didn't exist, he's embraced a central tenet of the Holocaust denial movement, and can rightly be called a Holocaust denier.
2: Kurt Nimmo
What does Kurt Nimmo have to say about the gas chambers of Auschwitz?
In a piece about the imprisonment of David Irving in Austria, Nimmo says this:
" . . .we can expect triumphant ballyhoos from the Zionists, a screaming and obnoxious declaration of victory for the small outlaw nation of Israel and its endless blackmailing of millions of people who had nothing to do with Auschwitz and its discredited gas chambers."
Welcome aboard the Holocaust denial train, Mr. Nimmo!
3: Kurt Nimmo again
But maybe he misspoke? Maybe he didn't mean it?
No, he meant it. Here it is from the man himself.
The original source for this quote, incidentally, a Wikipedia page, has disappeared. (Apparently Nimmo didn't want to be held accountable for his own words and demanded that his page be taken down.) But there was a big slab of it captured earlier this year by that surely unimpeachable source, a UK Indymedia editor.
http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-uk-features/2007-April/0425-ni.html
There are not "numerous" references to "Holocaust denial" in my writings, so this linkage will not be possible. In a blog post (February 20th 2006), in regard to the conviction of David Irving, I wrote that the gas chambers were "discredited." If you bother to use a dictionary, you will notice that "discredited" is defined as "cause to be doubted." Indeed, this is the case with at least one historian, Franciszek Piper, a Polish scholar, historian, author, and former chair of the Historical Department at the Auschwitz State Museum (indeed, museum director) and is currently associated with the Państwowe Muzeum, Auschwitz-Birkenau, so I imagine that gives him a bit of credence. It should come as no surprise that people argue about historical facts surrounding the Holocaust and indeed the history of the Second World War. But for those intolerant of discussion, those who dispute the historical record, even in minor fashion, are "Holocaust deniers" and "anti-Semites." I suppose, as well, Lech Walesa is a "Holocasut denier," as he revised number of dead inscribed on the Birkenau monument downward from 4,000,000 to 1,500,000. I see no mention of this in his Wikipedia entry or accusations that he is a "Holoacust denier." But then, far as I can ascertain, he is not a critic of Zionism, so obviously he does not deserve the same treatment. As for the publication of my blog entries on other sites, related to the Holocaust or otherwise, Shrike should realize reposts happen continually, without my permission, so I have no control over where my writing appears. For the record, I do not submit my writing ANYWHERE, although anybody is free to repost it.
Nimmo's defense consists of a retread of standard themes from the Holocaust denial movement. Let's look at his defense, step by step.
Nimmo begins with a word game. Anything that someone doubts, he says, is "discredited." Apparently,by this yardstick, if I can find one person who thinks that the moon landing was faked by Stanley Kubrick, then the entire Apollo project must be called "discredited." The vapidity of that word game should be obvious. If we take Nimmo's word game at face value -- as some have done, I remind you -- then there's absolutely nothing in the world that isn't discredited outside maybe math books, and the term "discredited" is utterly meaningless as anything but a signifier for "not a math book."
Nimmo then moves on to an out-and-out lie: he claims that a former leader of the Auschwitz State Museum believes there weren't homicidal gas chambers at Auschwitz. That's simply a straight-out lie. Again, from the Irving judgment: 8.22 ... Research carried out more recently, notably by Raul Hilberg and by Dr Piper of the Auschwitz Museum, has concluded that the true figure for the number of deaths at Auschwitz is in the region of 1.1 million of which the vast majority perished in the gas chambers. This figure has, according to the evidence of van Pelt and Longerich, been endorsed by the majority of serious, professional historians concerned in this field.
Nimmo then moves on to one of the Golden Oldies of the Holocaust denial movement: the Auschwitz Plaque gambit. That one had been debunked even before David Irving became a Holocaust denier -- see #43 on this rebuttal of Holocaust denier lies, http://www.holocaust-history.org/denial/revisionism-qa.shtml.
Nimmo then goes on to play the Zionism card, claiming that the outrage he sparked by embracing Holocaust denial wasn't anti-racism but just a bunch of Zionists trying to play thought cops. Well, wrong again. But when an antisemite loses an argument, he blames The Zionists.
So, in summary: when his hand was caught in the Holocaust denial cookie jar, Kurt Nimmo responded with a combination of direct lies and retreads of standard Holocaust denial arguments.
What do you call someone who, when challenged as a Holocaust denier, replies as a Holocaust denier? A Holocaust denier.
@%<
First, let's make sure we know what we mean by "Holocaust denial." And let's go to the definitive source: let's take a look at the Irving judgment.
What does Irving the Holocaust denier say?
8.9 Amongst the assertions made by Irving which mark him out as a Holocaust denier, [WWII Historian Richard] Evans [expert witness in the trial] noted in particular the following: his claim that the number who "died" in Auschwitz, "most of them from epidemics", was 100,000; his claim made expressly or by implication that the Jews had brought the Holocaust upon themselves; his assertion that that the conduct of the Nazis in exterminating Jews could be excused by the fact that they or their families had suffered in the Allied bombing raids; the manner in which he dismissed the totality of the evidence of eye-witnesses from Auschwitz as unreliable because it is the product of mass hysteria; his claim, often repeated as will be seen, that the gas chambers at Auschwitz are a lie invented by British intelligence; his denunciation the diary of Ann Frank as a forgery or as a novel like Gone With the Wind; his claim that the myth of the Holocaust is the product of a well-financed campaign by Jewry to legitimise the substantial payments made by Germany to the state of Israel since the war. This claim has been made by Irving on several occasions including the launch of the English edition of the Leuchter report. The Defendants contend that Irving qualifies as a Holocaust denier and that his denial flies in the face of the totality of the evidence.
Did the court agree with the expert witness?
13.94 In addressing the question whether Irving is justifiably described as Holocaust denier, I make allowance for the fact that, when addressing live audiences as opposed to writing history books, Irving needed to hold the attention of his audience by expressing himself in a vivid and colourful style. I agree that it is necessary to take care to ensure that Irving is not quoted out of context. I accept that merely to question aspects of the Holocaust does not make a person a Holocaust denier. I recognise also that Irving came relatively late to the issue of the Holocaust: he claimed to have paid little attention to it before 1989.
13.95 Even so, it appears to me to be incontrovertible that Irving qualifies as a Holocaust denier. Not only has he denied the existence of gas chambers at Auschwitz and asserted that no Jew was gassed there, he has done so on frequent occasions and sometimes in the most offensive terms. . .
The fact is, the denial of the gas chambers at Auschwitz is one of the core tenets of Holocaust denial. Take a look, if you get the chance, at Errol Morris's documentary "Mr. Death: The Rise and Fall of Fred A. Leuchter" for an example of someone who used that claim -- that there were no homicidal gas chambers at Auschwitz -- as his meal ticket in Holocaust denial circles for years. You'll find it in Leuchter, in Faurisson, in Gaurady, in Zündel.
Sometimes you'll hear the argument that, well, someone isn't a Holocaust denier unless they totally deny every facet of the Holocaust, as if none of it happened. Well, there really isn't anybody who goes around saying that the Holocaust simply didn't happen; the evidence is just too clear. Instead the standard denier riff is to try to redefine it the Holocaust by taking away its central features -- the genocidal program, the death toll, and the use of homicidal gas chambers -- and then saying, "Yes, the Nazis were bad people who did bad things to the Jews, but they didn't gas them, didn't kill six million of them, and didn't try to wipe them out genocidally -- but don't call me a Holocaust denier."
Just to give you a sense of scale, in the most used of the gas chambers at Auschwitz, one called Krema II, half a million people were murdered. There is no other single room on earth in which so many have died. The gas chambers of Auschwitz are not just a minor detail of history whose existence or non-existence is a mere quibble in the margins of the story.
So when someone says that the gas chambers of Auschwitz didn't exist, he's embraced a central tenet of the Holocaust denial movement, and can rightly be called a Holocaust denier.
2: Kurt Nimmo
What does Kurt Nimmo have to say about the gas chambers of Auschwitz?
In a piece about the imprisonment of David Irving in Austria, Nimmo says this:
" . . .we can expect triumphant ballyhoos from the Zionists, a screaming and obnoxious declaration of victory for the small outlaw nation of Israel and its endless blackmailing of millions of people who had nothing to do with Auschwitz and its discredited gas chambers."
Welcome aboard the Holocaust denial train, Mr. Nimmo!
3: Kurt Nimmo again
But maybe he misspoke? Maybe he didn't mean it?
No, he meant it. Here it is from the man himself.
The original source for this quote, incidentally, a Wikipedia page, has disappeared. (Apparently Nimmo didn't want to be held accountable for his own words and demanded that his page be taken down.) But there was a big slab of it captured earlier this year by that surely unimpeachable source, a UK Indymedia editor.
http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-uk-features/2007-April/0425-ni.html There are not "numerous" references to "Holocaust denial" in my writings, so this linkage will not be possible. In a blog post (February 20th 2006), in regard to the conviction of David Irving, I wrote that the gas chambers were "discredited." If you bother to use a dictionary, you will notice that "discredited" is defined as "cause to be doubted." Indeed, this is the case with at least one historian, Franciszek Piper, a Polish scholar, historian, author, and former chair of the Historical Department at the Auschwitz State Museum (indeed, museum director) and is currently associated with the Państwowe Muzeum, Auschwitz-Birkenau, so I imagine that gives him a bit of credence. It should come as no surprise that people argue about historical facts surrounding the Holocaust and indeed the history of the Second World War. But for those intolerant of discussion, those who dispute the historical record, even in minor fashion, are "Holocaust deniers" and "anti-Semites." I suppose, as well, Lech Walesa is a "Holocasut denier," as he revised number of dead inscribed on the Birkenau monument downward from 4,000,000 to 1,500,000. I see no mention of this in his Wikipedia entry or accusations that he is a "Holoacust denier." But then, far as I can ascertain, he is not a critic of Zionism, so obviously he does not deserve the same treatment. As for the publication of my blog entries on other sites, related to the Holocaust or otherwise, Shrike should realize reposts happen continually, without my permission, so I have no control over where my writing appears. For the record, I do not submit my writing ANYWHERE, although anybody is free to repost it.
Nimmo's defense consists of a retread of standard themes from the Holocaust denial movement. Let's look at his defense, step by step.
Nimmo begins with a word game. Anything that someone doubts, he says, is "discredited." Apparently,by this yardstick, if I can find one person who thinks that the moon landing was faked by Stanley Kubrick, then the entire Apollo project must be called "discredited." The vapidity of that word game should be obvious. If we take Nimmo's word game at face value -- as some have done, I remind you -- then there's absolutely nothing in the world that isn't discredited outside maybe math books, and the term "discredited" is utterly meaningless as anything but a signifier for "not a math book."
Nimmo then moves on to an out-and-out lie: he claims that a former leader of the Auschwitz State Museum believes there weren't homicidal gas chambers at Auschwitz. That's simply a straight-out lie. Again, from the Irving judgment: 8.22 ... Research carried out more recently, notably by Raul Hilberg and by Dr Piper of the Auschwitz Museum, has concluded that the true figure for the number of deaths at Auschwitz is in the region of 1.1 million of which the vast majority perished in the gas chambers. This figure has, according to the evidence of van Pelt and Longerich, been endorsed by the majority of serious, professional historians concerned in this field.
Nimmo then moves on to one of the Golden Oldies of the Holocaust denial movement: the Auschwitz Plaque gambit. That one had been debunked even before David Irving became a Holocaust denier -- see #43 on this rebuttal of Holocaust denier lies,
http://www.holocaust-history.org/denial/revisionism-qa.shtml. Nimmo then goes on to play the Zionism card, claiming that the outrage he sparked by embracing Holocaust denial wasn't anti-racism but just a bunch of Zionists trying to play thought cops. Well, wrong again. But when an antisemite loses an argument, he blames The Zionists.
So, in summary: when his hand was caught in the Holocaust denial cookie jar, Kurt Nimmo responded with a combination of direct lies and retreads of standard Holocaust denial arguments.
What do you call someone who, when challenged as a Holocaust denier, replies as a Holocaust denier? A Holocaust denier.
@%<
gehrig
