Talk:Paul Rassinier/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Historian?

Do his teaching (at which level?), or the fact that, among others, he wrote about history, qualify him as a historian? Apokrif 15:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Probably yes. The quality of the work should settle the matter not the degree. The lack of degrees seems to be mainly an ad hominem attempt to degrade the research without having to come up with scientic/factual refutations - but worth a try.

Like any good historian, he concentrated on getting to the source, either by interviewing witnesses or searching out source documents. For instance, for "Operation Vicar", he traveled to Rome and was granted access to Vatican archives. He wasn't the first to point out that the anti-Nazi encyclical "With Burning Concern", published on May 14, 1937, was written under a pseudonym by Cardinal Eugene Pacelli, the future Pope Pius XII, but his commentary on the encyclical was the first to bring wide awareness of it, and brought him much gratitude from the Vatican, including a letter of thanks from Monsigneur George Roche, Superior General of Opus Cenaculi. I've noted that excerpts from "Operation Vicar" are still occasionally published in Catholic magazines.

Historians generally follow a similar methodolgy, one of the end results of which is a peer reviewed journal of some sort, so that other serious historians can examine their work. Writing about history doesn't qualify one as a historian; David Irving has written lots about history, and he isn't considered a serious historian. If someone is claimed to be a historian, then their work should stand up to peer review. I would therefore doubt that on this account he can be considered a historian. 05:13, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Publishing certainly results in peer review. Peer review seems a good way to restrict publication - or is it to discover errors first. I have never read a historical book that commented on its being peer reviewed - I have seen medical papers that mentioned peer review. Is wiki pulling the wool over our eyes about peer review of history, etc? PS A short time on the internet and wiki editors and their "peer review" certainly starts to look stupid - look it up yourself, it is fun. Much non-science ( ie history - not math, medical, etc ) is post publication - I guessed right ( how do you peer review an opinion - hopefully based on some facts, but do you really want to hold political views up to review? ). Among historians - NEH, HNN, etc - the review process is not universal - only wiki sounds so cut to the soul about it ( but only when it gores one of their oxen ). When has a pro-Holocaust book been peer reviewed by a critic, pre-publication?

Utterly, odiously POV

The tone of much of the 'Post-war activities' and 'The father of Holocaust Revisionism' sections suggests that R's opinions have some basis in fact. Re-write needed. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 16:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

But they DO have some basis in fact. If you can't deal with the facts than how can you call this an encyclopaedia? It sounds to me as if the bias is totally yours.

Facts and opinions aren't one in the same, and just because there are some facts sprinkled in, doesn't mean those facts apply to those same opinions. The article seems a bit light on citations, which would shed more light on what the original editor was working with. As for biases, we all have them, but wikipedia shouldn't be advancing someone's political agenda. 4:57, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

What total rubbish. Wikipedia is always advancing someone's political agenda ( except in a few math/science article. It shouldn't but it does.

MORE DETAIL AND FOOTNOTES

There ya go. An edit with footnotes added. I don't know if I can add anymore, this is right at the 32K limit.

Before anybody else questions either the accuracy or POV of this article, I like to pose the following question.

Vous parlez français, oui? Et peut lire les écritures de Rassinier dans l'original?

Because I do, and I can.

heuuu... no. You quite obviously neither do nor can. Sorry, buddy. I am French, and French is my first language. What you just wrote above is at best approximative. It is both grammatically incorrect and loaded with vocab errors. Next time you want to impress with your knowledge, be sure you got the credentials to back it up. FYI, the correct version of what you seemingly meant to express is ""Parlez-vous le Français? Êtes-vous capable de lire les écrits originaux de Rassinier?"" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.72.93.5 (talk) 23:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Only four of Rassinier's books are available in English. All three of the authoritative biographies are in French, and have not been translated.

Plantin's biography is factual and meticulously documented; with some fifty-six pages of source notes, including the most comprehensive listing available of Rassinier's articles in various publications.

Fresco's biography is a blatant character assassination, but does contain an interview with Jeanne and Jean-Paul Rassinier that is not without value.

The Dictionnaire biographique du mouvement ouvrier Français is dry and straightforward, but its brief biography of Rassinier's father Joseph is, to my knowledge, the only one available.

If you can't read French, you can't read the hundreds of newspaper and magazine articles Rassinier wrote, along with his other books, including L'Operation Vicaire: Le role de Pie XII devant l'Histore, or the very important Candasse. Nor can you read the dozens of articles, pro and con, written about Rassinier by various authors.

All source documents by or about Rassinier are still in French, with the exception of the Barnes translations. If you can't read French, or know somebody who can, you are not accessing source documents, and I don't think it's out of line to insist that any objections to the factuality or POV of this article be based on source documents.

I'd also appreciate it if any perceived lapses in factual accuracy be explained in detail. If they are true, I will correct them. Or to put it another way, if anybody thinks anything in this bio is inaccurate, I'd like to see proof of it, and from a primary source.

Finally, I remind everybody that this is a biography of Paul Rassinier and the factual events of his life. It corrects many errors in other biographies - for instance, The Jewish Virtual Library states that Rassinier spent two years serving in the French National Assembly, which is just not true.

It is not a commentary on his writings or political activism, and any opinion on Rassinier's life or the veracity of his writings is not consistent with a neutral stance.

For the truth or falsehood of his positions, I refer you to his writings and associated commentary, and you can judge for yourself.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkenact (talk • contribs) 22:58, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Second Edit Commentary

---

:As for source documents: Bunkum. This is an encyclopdia, not a research vehicle, and Original Research is prohibited. So, the point of whether one can read French, or has access to someone who can translate the source material, is moot. Unless Rassinier's arguements are only valid in French, which would make him both a weak scholar and a weak historian.

As I mentioned, only four of Rassinier's books have been translated into English, and this is a biography of his life, not an analysis of his arguments. I'm certain I've got the factual events of his life correct. While you may disagree, an analysis of his arguments would be done best on Wikipedia with individual reviews and analysis of his books, as is done with several other books online. See below for some possible sources.

A Biography should cover a subject completely, and with candor. If you don't want to provide a reasonable analysis of his arguements, leave out his arguements from the piece. Stating his arguements and then not providing supporting or opposing corroboration implies that what he believed was fact --- which in many cases is untrue.

:Some of the text is definately in error ... references to "nobody called it the Holocaust" in his day are silly, as this term was in common use by the 50's

While some publications from the 1950's do indeed refer to a "holocaust", the proper noun phrase "The Holocaust" was not in common usage until 1978, when the book and TV movie of the same name came out. The term "Shoah", a Hebrew word that translates out, to the best of my knowledge, as "catastrophe", was the common name before that date. Indeed, "Shoah" was the original title of the 1978 book, and you can still find first edition copies under that title. 2nd editions of the book, and the movie title, were changed to "Holocaust" after some TV producer asked for the name change. For more details on the power of TV to name historical events, consult "The Holocaust In American Life" by Peter Novick. Rassinier died in 1967, and while he may have heard references to a "holocaust in the east", as it says, he never heard the proper noun phrase "The Holocaust" in his lifetime, with the meaning it has after 1978. If you go through his writings, you'll note that the phrase never appears.

Holocaust Deniers don't call themselves deniers; and they often don't refer to "the Holocaust" as a proper noun either. But I think that the point is that the term was in use (as early as 1942), and that this seems to say that Rassinier had doubts prior to it being recognized and given a proper name. (Does Rassinier use "Shoah" in his writings?)

:Why would the veracity of his writings not be "consistent with a neutral stance"? If it is claimed he is a historian, and not a fiction writer, then the truth, or lack thereof, should be of concern to the readers of his entry.

A critique of the veracity of his writings is, as I suggested, best done with a review of his books. Taking a side, one way or another, seems out of line. Rassinier got a lot of things right, and a lot of things wrong, and wrote while the Iron Curtain really was an Iron Curtain. For instance, he wasn't able to travel back to Buchenwald to confirm some details in his own account because, until at least 1957, Buchenwald had been incorporated into the Soviet Gulag. Indeed, a comparison of his books and modern books can be used to demonstrate what was known in his day, and what is known now, though I don't think anybody has attempted that.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and it should be fact based. "Taking sides", and establishing the veracity of his writings, is not the same thing. We can write about Creationism, and then chime in that science advances a Theory of Evolution. If his entry is going to be flagged as "historian", then it _is_ important to examine the veracity of his writings.

:Finally, I thank the original author for putting some cites in; are any of these sources available on the net? It might be helpful for those that want to either study or review the article. 18:10, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Citation 1: Maitron's Dictionary is online, in French, for a price. However, Nadine Fresco has Paul Rassinier's selection, in French, available here. [1] Citation 2, 3 and 14 are in the Archive Rassinier. Citations 4, 5, 7, 9, 10 sourced and reproduced, in part, in the Plantin biography. Citation 11 used to be online, but the German site is no longer active, and it was in German. I got Priester's background, what little there is of it, from German Wikipedia. Parts, just paragraphs really, of the National-Zeitung article are reproduced in English at various points on IHR, but not in full. Citation 15: The original review is available online, but you have to pay to join the archive for "The Nation", I'd recommend a library. Parts of Citation 13 are reproduced, but not in full, at various points on the IHR sites or in French on Aaargh, and Fresco also notes Jean-Paul Rassinier's brief exclusion from Israel in her biography. Citations 6 and 16 can be found in '"Lies", Citation 12 in "Drama". Citation 8 - Plantin makes a brief comparison to Burney, noting that like Rassinier, his book was violently condemned by the left-wing, and especially Communist press. Rassinier makes reference to Burney in both "Lies" and "Trial", without quoting him. Note Of Interest: Burney and Rassinier arrived at Buchenwald in the same transport, and Burney, though he didn't know him, witnessed what was to become Rassinier's nearly-fatal transport leaving Buchenwald. Since the book is so hard to find, I'm working on a review/description of THE DUNGEON DEMOCRACY for Wikipedia inclusion.

---

There are two sections for the "holocaust revision" parts of the piece, which should be merged into one. There is lots of verbiage, but in places the facts are without citations and the citations seem to be weak and non specific.

There are two sections, "Revisionist Historian" and "Father Of Holocaust Revisionism" for a reason. If you look at Rassinier's bibliography, his revisionist writings addressed issues other than World War II and the Nazi's - "The Equivocal Revolutionary", for instance, is partly devoted to a socialist analysis of the Hungarian Insurrection of 1956. AND, he didn't become the "Father Of Holocaust Revisionism" until after the Barnes translations, and that, like the phrase "Holocaust Revisionism" itself, came after his death.

There is some holocaust revisionism/denial sprinkled in with the revisionist historian piece, and the timeline jumps around a bit in both. The headings are inconsistent (both are postwar developments, so should be headed similarly).

For example, the piece describes Rassinier's book "Crossing the Line" as "an immediate success." Was it a critical success or a bestseller? Either of these facts should have a citation.

I originally included a footnote for the critical reception of "Crossing The Line" - in fact, I originally had 36 footnotes, but that well broke the 32K article limit, and I had to seriously trim. The footnote read as follows:

""Crossing The Line" was an immediate critical and commercial success, given its highest praise by the Trade Union of Journalists and Writers. It was also endorsed as a must-read by the SFIO. Extracts from the book were serialized in several newspapers, including French-language papers in Italy and Spain. Reviews in newspapers and magazines were unanimously good, this being a good example:"

""...the objectively detailed indictment from a pacifist and internationalist against the judge and the soldier. It is also on this subject, which remains of extreme topicality, the first testimony coldly and calmly written against the demands of resentment, idiotic hatred or chauvinsim" Proletarian Revolution, No. 32, November, 1949, fourth from cover."

If you are wedging stuff around, maybe an article on his books broken out seperately might help; stuffing things in, and leaving analysis out isn't balancing the article.

Later, it states.. "He dissected and debunked the book Doctor At Auschwitz". Again, no citation of this fact, and no commentary as to whether this debunking was supported by other scholars

Re: Nyiszli's "Doctor At Auschwitz", I tried to give a paragraph to each of Rassinier's books as well as internal citations, I had to trim brutally. If something is cited in the paragraph for that book, it can be found in that book, I saved what footnote space I had for material not available on the "Debunking" link. Rassiner's dissection is found in Chapter V of "Trial", but an even more complete dissection is found in "Drama", Witnesses, Testimonies and Documents, part III. On reflection, the debunking in "Drama" is more comprehensive, so I've transferred the citation to the paragraph on "Drama". My thanks for drawing my attention to this.

As for support by other scholars, one of the best is Jean-Claude Pressec's analysis of "Doctor At Auschwitz" in AUSCHWITZ: TECHNIQUE AND OPERATION OF THE GAS CHAMBERS, pages 473 thru 479. Pressec agreed, to a point, with Rassnier's objections, and came to the conclusion that Nyiszli's account was exaggerated by a factor of four. Rassinier, however, believed that the true author of the book was Tibere Kremer. Since it both confirms and debunks Rassinier at the same time, I've decided to put this in External Links.

I think this is an important piece of info though, better put in the piece, not relegated to the external links. This shows his work is controversial at least, which is not how the tone is now in the article.

Overall, the tone of the piece seems to accept as fact much of what Rassinier writes, simply because he has written it. What do his collegues say, and what about Historians looking back? A NPOV means that we should be including a critical analysis of his claims. 18:33, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

After winning his lawsuit for publication of "The Lie Of Ulysses", no scholarly critiques of Rassinier's books were written, to the best of my knowledge, in France until Georges Wellers (See below). The only book of his that captured Western imagination during his lifetime was "Operation Vicar", and that in Catholic circles. After 1951, Rassinier's critics, during his lifetime, seem to have been mainly concerned with what they felt was his too cozy relationships with far-right organizations, like "The Old Mole" group. France was in no small amount of turmoil between 1951 and 1967, and while there was an audience for his books, interest in articles for what the French called "L'Deportation" was very limited. As Novick's book has noted, during the 1960's, it's not out of line to say that there was zero interest in the Holocaust. In "Trial", Rassinier includes a paragraph noting with bemusement the general lack of interest there had been in the Eichmann trial while it was going on.

I included one look back from a hostile reviewer on the External Links section, not because it's all that good (ad hominum attack), but it is in English, and Pierre Vidal-Naquet (who died only last month, August of 2006) knew him personally.

As for other critics, there are plenty of them after about 1987, but almost all of them are ad hominum attacks on his character, with plenty of propaganda and outright falsehoods.

The few attempts at a scholarly critique of Paul Rassinier:

1. I'd link the Fresco biography, but it's not online, and she ruins it with her own admission that she couldn't bring herself to read his books. Not available in English either.

2. Georges Wellers, ""Les Chambres De Gaz Ont existé" (1977) contains a damning debunking of "The Drama Of The European Jews", with some valid points, some not, and the predictable ad hominum attack. It's not available online, and only portions have been translated. But if anybody ever does a review of "The Drama Of The European Jews", Wellers objections are a must to include.

3. In English: At the Irving Trial, Robert Jan Van Pelt blasted Rassinier's scholarship here: [2] (you have to scroll down) but Van Pelt was not cross-examined, and recites information that he got from Wellers' book as if it was his own research, while giving Wellers credit only once. Looking over his testimony, I've noted at least one blatant falsehood, which would have been caught if he had been cross-examined. He also, rather unfairly, brought up details of the Central Construction Office at Auschwitz that Rassinier could not have known. This isn't a scholarly paper. That would include what Rassinier got right, what he got wrong, what he could have known in his time (AND that was available in France) and what he could not have, and something else besides the vitriolic ad hominum attack Van Pelt begins his testimony with, and at the end, he stops just short of saying that he really doesn't know very much about Rassinier. For that reason, I've been reluctant to put it in External Links. I invite an opinion as to whether that's advisable in a biography.

Rassinier led a very complicated life. Sorry boys, from his attacks against the Nazi's in 1932 (Before they took power); his unique analysis of Nazism as a form of racism, not anti-semitism; and to his relationship with Robert Faurisson, I had to leave lots out.

The lack of critical commentary of others about Rassinier's works is still troubling. The tone of the article leaves a reader with the impression that his arguments were factual and have been validated, where my feeling is that most of his core arguements have been refuted and debunked.

More issues

"Rassinier's application of historiographical techniques to what would later be called The Holocaust is his unique contribution, which truly does make him the Pioneer of Holocaust Revisionism". While most deniers/revisionists _claim_ they are employing historigraphy, much of what they are saying is smoke and mirrors, designed to fool rather then convince.

There is lots of focus around the perpetrator confessions, such as Hoess. While Hoess was tortured once, he wrote an excellent book and also testified at trials about his complicity. He even wrote about his torture; but most revisionists/deniers discount his accounts, since they can't explain it away. But this isn't even alluded to in the text.

As you are being responsive, I don't want to put an NPOV tag back on the page, but as it is now, the piece still lacks balance. 04:05, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

With some elementary digging, I found this http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/genocide/reviewas9.htm link and this http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/l/lipstadt.deborah/ftp.py?people/l/lipstadt.deborah//rassinier-distortions.01 one, both of which are by respected scholars, and both of which are pretty damning of his techniques. One states quite openly that "Rassinier fabricated data, misquoted, and used quotations out of context." This sounds much more like David Irving then a reputable Historian. I'm going to keep digging, hopefully we can get this NPOVed. 05:26, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Neither of the two above links help your cause - what was the purpose? The Lip only found one quote that she didn't like out of decades of writing - if I could read French I suspect the Lip probably got it wrong anyway. The first link appears to be ad homimem debate with no substance. Someone must be able to find better.

In Chronological Order Now

Well, lets try it now. I decided to throw caution to the wind, and break the 32K limit, not by much, so hopefully Wikipedia won't complain.

I've adjusted the headings, and put Rassinier's writings in chronological order, that does improve things, thanks for the suggestions. Using the ancient art of paragraph counting, I came to the conclusion that the lack of balance was centered around The Drama Of The European Jews, which was his most controversial work. Being several paragraphs long, it did indeed cry out for commentary on its critical response. I've now devoted two paragraphs to Wellers' dissection, which is the source document for all criticism of this book since. If you look at the footnote, you're in luck, there is an English translation out there, though it must have been a VERY limited printing. The French edition I have doesn't mention that translation at all.

Holocaust Deniers don't call themselves deniers; and they often don't refer to "the Holocaust" as a proper noun either. But I think that the point is that the term was in use (as early as 1942), and that this seems to say that Rassinier had doubts prior to it being recognized and given a proper name. (Does Rassinier use "Shoah" in his writings?)

Rassinier never uses the word "Shoah", though he probably came across it. With some prodding by The World Jewish Congress, the Allied governments released the joint declaration of December 17, 1942, declaring that the Germans were putting into effect "Hitler's oft-repeated intention to exterminate the Jewish people," and that Jews were being "deliberately massacred in mass executions" in Poland, but it never uses a proper noun "The Holocaust". Novick, again with The Holocaust In American Life, says that "The Holocaust" began to be used in the West in the 1960's as an import from Israel, where the word "Shoah" was often, though incorrectly, translated by journalists as "holocaust". It was never translated that way in French. Novick thinks that the first use of the word as a formal noun was by journalist Paul Jacobs, who, covering the Eichmann trial, referred to "The Holocaust, as the Nazi annihilation of European Jewry is called in Israel". "Eichmann and Jewish Identity", The New Leader, No. 44, July 3, 1961. This phrase didn't catch on at the time in America, and Rassinier never saw that article. I can't find a single article from France during the 1950's or 1960's that refers to l'Holocauste.

I think this is an important piece of info though, better put in the piece, not relegated to the external links. This shows his work is controversial at least, which is not how the tone is now in the article

Agreed. I've put Pressec in the body, with a full footnote.

Rassinier's application of historiographical techniques to what would later be called The Holocaust is his unique contribution, which truly does make him the Pioneer of Holocaust Revisionism". While most deniers/revisionists _claim_ they are employing historigraphy, much of what they are saying is smoke and mirrors, designed to fool rather then convince.

I paraphrased Jean Plantin's comments on this from his Introduction in an attempt to save space. It's now reproduced word for word as he wrote it. The second statement has nothing to do with Rassinier's life.

There is lots of focus around the perpetrator confessions, such as Hoess...

I've expanded that part, but a dissection of Rassinier's evaluation of Hoess belongs in a review of the book, or the Hoess listing. Keep in mind that this is 1964, and Rassinier and Europe were being bombarded with contradictory numbers by both press and politican. The Russians and Poles still claimed 4,000,000 dead, Hoess gives you both 2,500,000 in one and 1-1,100,000 in another, the 1955 movie "Night And Fog" hints that 20,000,000 were killed there, and Poliakev and Hilberg had their own numbers. Not a single figure at that time is confirmed by forensic evaluation of the murder weapon, except the 4,000,000 Soviet figure, and that's now known to be incorrect. Rassinier justly wondered why, if a capital crime is alleged, the accusing parties couldn't agree on the numbers, at least within a defined range.

:With some elementary digging, I found this The first item you found is not Nadine Fresco's biography of Rassinier. It is a review of it. Reviews tell you much about an article and author, but not the subject, any more than a review of "Hamlet" tells you what the play is about, in substance and nuance. Here, that would mean that you'd have to read Fresco's biography yourself. Je suppose que votre Français est égal à la tâche?

The second item is yet another Deborah Lipstadt original with material borrowed but not credited from Georges Weller's essay.

You know, you didn't have to dig to find a Lipstadt trashing of Paul Rassinier. There's one on the DEBUNKING link in my article, posted in the middle of the English translations of Rassinier's books. It was right there.

Aside from what she gets from secondary and tertiary sources, Lipstadt, like Van Pelt, knows nothing about Rassinier's biography. I've cited the source document on her essay, which is also the source document for other sources she cites, in the article, I assume you can buy the English translation off Amazon.

If you keep "digging", you'll find all sorts of hostile biographies of Rassinier, none of them correct. Few people have had as many falsehoods told about them as Paul Rassinier. As I mentioned before, the one on the Jewish Virtual Library is a total hoot. You'll find Rassinier condemned as an anti-semite, neo-nazi, pathetic attention hound, frustrated politician out for revenge; as a meglomaniac who hated a world that didn't recognize his genius, compulsive liar, fraud, and in my favorite website about him, in French, as an imposter. It's all bullshit. The lies about Rassnier began with his first book, I've seen plenty of them from Communist papers beginning in 1949. Nadine Fresco, in her biography, even stooped to telling a lie about Rassinier's father. To know Rassinier, you have to know his writings, ALL of them. Le Français n'est pas une langue difficile à apprendre, et le bilinguality est une compétence que chaque Américain devrait essayer pour acquérir.

Hey, why the big HOPE that it's NPOV'd, instead of joy that so much disinformation has been cleared up? Trying to bury the dog before it's dead? You sound afraid of something. Well, I'm gone for about 10 days. Happy digging.

I think that "Le Francais.....acquerir." line might be dumping on me but I am not sure.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.105.80.219 (talk) 15:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

NPOV

I've taken the line of "assuming good faith", but some editors have a way over overlooking the bad about a subject and only focusing on the "positive" elements; I'm hoping that is not the case here. I'm not so interested in "hostile biographies" as I am in having one that is NPOV. I'm more interested in his work, and whether what he says has any weight, which still isn't really addressed. You keep referring back to having to know Rassinier's writings, and imply one needs to know French. However, this smacks of Original Research, and isn't allowed on Wikipedia. The links I provided above are short blurbs on Rassinier's work, and adequately display that his writings can't be taken at face value. This brings into question his classification as a historian, where he might only be a history writer. I'm concerned that "He questioned the technical feasibility of the claimed methods of extermination, examining the testimonies of Kurt Gerstein and Rudolf Hoess, and dismissed them as outrageously exaggerated." is stated as fact. While he pioneered the technique of questioning SS testimony, there is no cite to suggest that this testimony is false or exaggerated, or that Rassinier has any qualification to make this, or many other conclusions. As this seems central to Rassinier's claim that the Genocide is exaggerated, analysis on the veracity of this statement seems on point. Your footnote 14, noting the "first use of reverse demography as a historigraphical tool", is refuted by your external link, which states "How does Rassinier arrive at that figure? By adding up data of extremely different kinds."

While most deniers/revisionists _claim_ they are employing historigraphy, much of what they are saying is smoke and mirrors, designed to fool rather then convince.

The ... statement has nothing to do with Rassinier's life.

Not his life, but his work. While he seems to be the "father of revisionism/denial", it is questionable whether he ever employed sound historigraphi cal practices. While in the talk page you examine (and critisize) various sources, this same critique is lacking in the article. As you have stated you are "gone for 10 days", I've put the NPOV tag back on the article for now. If I have some time, I will try to see if I can balance out the page in the next little while; hopefully we can work more on this together when you return. 17:50, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I found a reliable source that has a bit about Rassinier; it's an article from "History Today" on Questia. "[Rassinier] had himself worked closely with the Gestapo as an assistant, and had, for example, been asked by them to listen to broadcasts from London and to translate what he had heard. Listening to London was forbidden. Therefore he and the Germans were linked together...". This seems to discredit the contention that "life was hard" in the camps for Rassinier. Further on, it goes on, "It is clear that Rassinier's work is distinguished by affirmation rather than by evidence. The affirmation is invariably derived from personal experience and opinion. The amount of research is minimal." Written by Douglas Johnson at http://www.questia.com/PM.qst;?a=o&d=5000412460

Another source I found was http://prizedwriting.ucdavis.edu/past/1996-1997/spinelli.html

I'm putting this in more as a note then a definitive analysis, but it seems that there are many examples taking to task his work for poor scholarship and faulty logic. 21:00, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Original Research

Your linking of Rassinier's claims to both Finkelstein and Burney are examples of Original Research in the article, and must either be corroborated by reliable source or removed.

To know Rassinier, you have to know his writings, ALL of them.

Might be true; but to be included in Wikipedia, _another_ reliable source should be referenced. And if to know Rassinier you need to know his writings, the critical review of those writings has to be included.

"The lies about Rassnier began..."

While you attack most of the works that are critical as lies, or dress it as "ad-hom" attacks, you need a reliable source to corroborate this, or it is your original research as well. 15:06, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

DOUGLAS JOHNSON ARTICLE

I had some time between shows, got this done early. I'll address all other issues in the time frame promised. My thanks by the way, for finding this article - unknown to me - and for some really great questions.

The origins of this historical movement are unexpected.

My first criticism is his writing style. Is he implying that this "movement" was expected, and from some other quarter? I'd give one of my student's a "D" just for this!

Paul Rassinier was a school teacher who had been quite a prominent member of the Communist Party until he was expelled. Then he became the head of the Socialist Federation in Belfort and its territory, where he was on the left of the party, and in touch with the anarchists. After the defeat of 1940, he was demobilised from the army, but he joined the Resistance in 1942.

He was not "demobilised". As he details in "Candasse", after weeks of waiting at his barracks, and with France falling, he and his comrades simply went home.

He was arrested and tortured by the Gestapo (but gave them no information) and sent to Buchenwald and afterwards to Dora. He spent some fourteen months in these concentration camps and after the Liberation he was elected to the National Assembly as a Socialist Deputy. But in 1947, still troubled by the effects of the Gestapo torturing, he took an early retirement.

He spent 15 months in Buchenwald, and his retirement was in 1950, not 47. He had been classified 95 percent an invalid at that time, which is a pretty good reason to be troubled.

It was then that he decided to write about his own experiences. At this time, because of the official French reluctance to study contemporary history and because of a national hesitation to write about `the black years' from 1940 to 1945, the only source of information about the concentration camps came from those who had had a direct experience of them.

Not true, he published CROSSING THE LINE in 1949, before he retired. And Allied movies about the concentration camps, planned as early as February, 1945 - BEFORE the Western Allies had overrun any camps (See below) were in all the European cinemas. Germans were required to see them, something that was widely printed at the time in France.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/camp/faqs.html

"F3080" was the name given to a project to compile a documentary film on German atrocities. The project originated in February 1945 in the Psychological Warfare Division of SHAEF (Supreme Headquarters Allied Expeditionary Force).

Rassinier found that these were unacceptable.

Overly broad statement. Rassinier praised several accounts, here's an example.

(3) As far as I know this has only been cited by Jean Puissant in his book, La Colline sans oiseaux (Editions du Rond-Point, 1945). A generally honest and detailed monograph, one of the best testimonies on the camps.

They over-dramatically painted a picture of German evil. He set out to show that whilst life had been hard in the camps the prisoners had enjoyed certain privileges.

Johnson got it backwards with a one-word inversion. Rassinier's thesis is that certain prisoners had enjoyed privileges at the expense of the rest.

He had himself worked closely with the Gestapo as an assistant, and had, for example, been asked by them to listen to broadcasts from London and to translate what he had heard.

Not true, and so egregious as to raise my suspicions. In CROSSING THE LINE, Rassinier talks about his employment in "Schwung" (prison argot, not really a direct English translation available, the best being the British phrase "batman") to the Oberscharfuhrer in charge of the guard dog company. This is the S.S., not the Gestapo. If my memory serves me right, at Buchenwald there were never more than three or four Gestapo agents attached to the Political Department, and Rassinier never worked there. He never worked for any German as an "assistant".

Here's the operative paragraph from THE LIE OF ULYSSES:

"My work consisted in cleaning a whole barrack which housed the more or less ranking members of the S.S. staff; among other things, I waxed their boots, made their beds, cleaned their mess kits, etc....all things that I did most humbly and conscientiously. In everyone of the rooms in this barrack was a radio. For all of the gold in the world, I would not have taken the risk of listening to one, even when I was absolutely certain of being alone. However, at about eight o'clock in the morning, when all of his subordinates had left for work, it happened two or three times that the Oberscharfuhrer called me into his room, where he had tuned to the B.B.C. that was broadcasting in French, and asked me to translate for him, which I did under my breath."

Listening to London was forbidden. Therefore he and the Germans were linked together, having disobeyed orders together. The idea was soon presented that there were not Germans persecuting Frenchmen in camps. but there were Germans and Frenchmen who were together in the confused tragedy of war.

Untrue. Rassinier never suggested that this incident created the slightest bond between him and the S.S. What happens next is that Rassinier shares one of those radio broadcasts with some of his fellow inmates, and holy hell breaks out in the camp rumor mill. Some quotes Rassinier provides from L'ENFER ORGANISE (The Organized Hell) by Eugen Kogen could be construed as Kogen saying such a thing, but it's a bit of a stretch. Kogen was so chummy with S.S. Doctor Ding-Schuller that he was asked to look after the doctor's wife after the war, but some sort of "we're in the boat together" statement never appears. This is about the closest I could find to anything that matches Johnson's last statement.

The happenings in the concentration camps were psychologically very singular, as much for the S.S. as for the inmates. In general, the reactions of the prisoners seemed more comprehensible than those of their oppressors. Actually the first were of a more human kind, while the others were markedly inhuman. (L'Enfer Organise, Page 305)

If Johnson construed this as anything more than what it says, that's really bad.

Rassinier's second book was called The Lies of Ulysses. It is a reference to a novel published by Jean Giono, the pacifist, in 1938, which describes Ulysses as a braggart who lied about the great deeds that he had done in order to conceal what had been an idle life of luxury.

Giono's book is titled "De Naissance de l'Odyssée au Contadour", and I never heard of it before, will have to put it on my reading list. Johnson has the publication date wrong, Giono's book dates from 1927, not 1938.

Rassinier knew Giono through his pacifist contacts, and worked with him both before and after the war, so while there's no record of it, I feel confident in speculating that Rassinier had either read the book, or at least was familiar with it. But according to Rassinier in CROSSING THE LINE, the phrase "The Lie Of Ulysses" was given TO him in the context of a conversation with a Czech inmate named Jircszah who had been in German concentration camps since 1938. Jircszah was also a pacifist and teacher before the war, and was probably familiar with Giono's book, since it was so popular it led to anarchists forming a pacifist cult around it, L'Movement Contadour. Finally, obvious from Rassinier's convo with him, Jircszah spoke French. Johnson has no proof that the title came from Giono's book, Rassinier reveals the origin.

When it came to the question of the German camps which executed the Jews, Rassinier entered into an argument that he developed for the rest of his life. He had never seen a gas-chamber in either of the concentration camps which he had known. Nor did he know of anyone who had been executed, who had disappeared unaccountably.

Misleading. Rassinier did know people hanged at Dora, and did know of somebody who disappeared.

But, there is nothing to prove conclusively that any of the unfit, or those so designated as unfit, who were selected in this way, either at Dora or at Birkenau, were sent to gas chambers. In support of this statement I want to record a personal experience. In the "Selektion" which I escaped at Dora was included one of my comrades who did not have the same luck. I saw him depart, and I was sorry for him. In 1946 I still believed that he was dead and that he had been asphyxiated together with the entire convoy of which he was a part. In September of the same year, to my astonishment, he showed up at my house to invite me to attend some official demonstration. When I told him what my fears for him had been all this time, he told me that the convoy in question had been sent to Bergen-Belsen, a convalescent center for the sick deportees from all the camps. This story is verified by a former deportee, a fellow named Mullin who is now an employee at the Besancon railway station. After a trip that was made under appalling conditions, he arrived at Bergen-Belsen, to which had converged convoys of the unfit from all over Germany. There were so many Prisoners that the camp administration didn't know where to Put them or how to feed them. He spent many horrible days there and was finally sent back to work. At Buchenwald, moreover, I had already encountered in Block 48 a Czech who had returned to Birkenau from Bergen-Belsen in the same way, though, in the end, not unaccountably.'

Rassinier reasonably wondered how many other people had been seen going to their "gassing".

And he asked the question. What was the evidence for wholesale extermination by the gas-chambers? One could not consult someone who had been gassed. Where were those who had witnessed the process? Where were those who had accomplished their terrible deeds? What did a gas chamber look like, how many people could it dispose of, what gas was used? Rassinier claimed that he had never been given a satisfactory answer to these questions. And there were other questions. if there was, as he had been told, a gas chamber at Auschwitz, was one certain that it had been there throughout the war years?

Completely reasonable questions.

Rassinier became obsessive about statistics.

Obsessive is going way to far, but even if he was, what of it? The numbers Rassinier saw were different from different sources, and didn't add up. Johnson's next paragraph demonstrates exactly what had Rassinier wondering.

The historian Hans Rothfels stated that 600,000 people had perished at Belzec, at the rate of 15,000 a day. Rassinier stated that since the camp was functioning for some nine months in 1942, then it ought to have been many more who perished, and he instanced more than 28 million. In this way he sought to rubbish the statistics.

Rothfel's figures of 15,000 a day ARE rubbish. This is known today, but you have to remember, in Rassinier's time, stuff like this was being accepted with no questions asked. The instance of 28 million is taken out of context, that was Rassinier's projection of what the total would have been if the inflated killing rate of all the alleged camps was true.

He was faced by another problem concerning numbers. There were Jews who claimed that they had lost all their family. People had undoubtedly disappeared and although American statisticians trying to estimate the post-war Jewish populations were having many difficulties, there was clearly a considerable drop between the pre-war and the post-war figures. Rassinier suggested that many Jews had gone to israel, many more than was officially stated, and he also put forward the idea that a great many jews were in China and in the Soviet Union.

But, he claimed most of them ended up in America or South America.

The China assertion is not unreasonable. Rassinier notes the fundraising and goodwill tour of the Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee, a Soviet front organization, through America in 1942 and 1943. Led by Salomon Mikhoels, the tours DID claim that most Jews in Soviet-occupied Poland, the Baltic countries and the Soviet Union had been saved and were safe in the Soviet interior, and the Soviet Union never repudiated those claims, tthough the claims they made after the war were contradictory. Beginning in 1928, while Rassinier was still in the Communist Party, the Soviet Union loudly trumpeted the creation of a Jewish homeland in Manchuria, bigger than the then proposed Zionist homeland in Israel, with tremendous natural resources.

Jewish Autonomous Oblast http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Autonomous_Republic

Rassinier had no way of knowing at the time how unpopular this was with European Jews. He DID know that from October of 1939 thru June of 1941, 1.5 million Poles had been "evacuated" or "resettled", or just plain deported into the Soviet Union from the newly Soviet part of Poland. Many were Jews, and it's reasonable to assume that some did end up in the Jewish Autonomous Oblast.

Rassinier's work can be summed up in two of his observations (he died in 1967). One was that if the Germans denied everything, then they were not far from speaking the truth.

I can't find this quote. Is it literal, or Johnson's paraphrase of something?

The other was that every day, the French, the English and the Americans were told about the extermination of the Jews and they had had enough of such propaganda.

I can't find this quote either. There's a paragraph in THE DRAMA where he remarks how nobody seems to have interest in the Eichmann Trial, but it's not this.

It is clear that Rassinier's work is distinguished by affirmation rather than by evidence. The affirmation is invariably derived from personal experience and opinion. The amount of research is minimal.

That's going too far. Rassinier was only able to do research on his side of the Iron Curtain, so just about everything he had to work with was from what was published in the West. Especially when it came to the Eastern camps, he couldn't travel there or do research. The fact is that nobody was allowed in Auschwitz except as part of the approved tour, a situation that continued, to the best of my knowledge, until 1977. He tried to get better info as an observer at the Frankfurt Auschwitz trials in 1962, but you saw what happened there. Rassinier often comments on his frustration over this, and his inability to speak from authority because of a lack of firm information. Here's an example from TRIAL.

In the one remaining case, contrary proof has not been made because it is a question of a camp (Auschwitz-Birkenau, the very one charged with the greatest number of the worst crimes) located on the other side of the Iron Curtain where nothing can be verified, and where the fabrication of false documents is raised to the level of an institution.

For institutional fabrication of false documents, remember the official Soviet forensic report that claimed 4,000,000 dead there.

Where it is opinion, Rassinier identifies it as such. AND he gives his reasons.

To try to explain this in terms of Rassinier himself is not easy as there is not yet a biography which seeks to examine the man behind the writings.

For the first time, Douglas is correct, partially. It's a source of major frustration to me. Plantin's biography is solid on dates, events, and other hard facts, but the man behind the writings is an enigma.

But Rassinier's motivation on this issue is not a mystery. He touches on it in the beginning of THE LIE, but CANDASSE lays it all out. Rassinier grew up in the Territory of Belfort, the only part of Alsace that was never a part of the 2nd or 3rd Reichs. The population is a mix of ethnic French and ethnic Germans. Rassinier, in CANDASSE, gives detailed descriptions of the ethnic tension between the two, who he describes as the "Guelfs and the Ghibillines". Rassinier, and his father, worked for most of their life trying to convince Alsacian's that ethnic strife was simply dividing neighbor against neighbor, to little avail. Rassinier's position on this is one of the reasons he lost his Assembly seat. Rassinier had also watched the ethnic strife increase after World War I, and was concerned that the returning World War II deportees would constitute a polity working towards revenge and xenophobia, just like the Great War veterans in his neighborhood. Rassinier's solution to are detailed in the prologue of THE LIES, and in a remarkable paragraph:

When I tried to envision the consequences of this smoldering hatred and when I remembered that I had a son, I had to ask myself whether it would not be better if no one returned. And, I even hoped that the higher authorities of the Third Reich would realize in time that they could only be pardoned by offering, in a gigantic and frightful holocaust, all that remained of the inmates in the camps, as a redemption for so much evil. In that state of mind, I had decided that if I ever got back from the camps, that I would practice what I preached, and I swore never to make the slightest reference to my experience in the camps.

And, my apologies. It seems Rassinier did use the word "holocaust" once. You can see the context.

But it is not unknown for those who have been vanquished to assume the characteristics of their conquerors, to praise them and to be assimilated with them.

Unsupported, either as fact or in relation to Rassinier. The Nazi's were never Rassinier's conquerors. He lived under German occupation for four years and four months, and he never stopped fighting them. And Rassinier never once praised National Socialism, anywhere, anyplace. In 1932, he wrote articles urging the German left to put their differences aside and unite to destroy National Socialism in the bud. The only instances I know of such a phenomena is when the "vanquished" are an oppressed ethnic minority, like the Ukranians then, or the Kurds today in Iraq. In this case, they look on the foreign army as their "liberators".

It is possible that Rassinier had a sense of guilt at having emerged from the concentration camps into freedom. Possibly Rassinier's left-wing socialism-cum-pacifism fitted easily into the mould of his writings and that he showed its hostility to Gaullists and Communists in his own way.

I'm thunderstruck at this sort of emotional speculation. ESPECIALLY on a history page devoted to research!

Rassinier found himself involved in several legal cases as the result of his writings, usually with associations of deportees.

Three legal cases, only one of which involved associations of deportees.

But there was no wholesale rejection. It seems that the first books he published in 1949 and in 1950 profited from the echoes of the Liberation, when French people undoubtedly committed crimes against other French people.

It was called l'Epuration. Rassinier and other columnists commented on it frequently in the 4th Republique in 1945 and 1946. Rassinier feared his nightmare about a French civil war was going to come true, but De Gaulle's intervention prevented that. France didn't come to the brink of civil war until the Algerian crisis.

There was a discussion about the existence of concentration camps in the Soviet Union and whether this should affect attitudes to that Power.

Until Kruschev's speech denouncing Stalinism, little was known about the Gulag. Rassinier DID have access to the memoirs of Margarete Buber-Neumann, who stated that conditions in Ravensbruck were better than they were in Stalin's Gulag.

At Nuremberg the Allies' hands were not particularly clean when they put the top Nazis on trial. and the Soviet Union, which had signed a pact with Hitler, refused to declare as criminal organisations the German General Staff and the High Command.

Rassinier has excellent comments on this.

In France there was a reluctance to distinguish between Jews and non-Jews in the history of those who had been deported and although Leon Poliakov published a well-documented study of the Third Reich and the Jews (Breviaire de la Haine) in 1951, leading French historians continued to publish books on Vichy which did not mention the Jewish question.

With good reason. Jews deported AS Jews from France were only those that held foreign passports. Jews with French citizenship were not deported, unless they were in the Resistance, or prominent, like Leon Blum.

It is also to be noted that although the word `genocide' was in use in France from 1945 onwards the word most in use during the 1950s to describe the extermination of the jews was `catastrophe'. But, of course, from 1940 onwards there had been many catastrophic events in France. Rassinier, it should be noted, used the word `gazeifaction'.

"Catastrophe" being the best English or French translation of Shoah. Like I said. L'Holocauste is never used as a proper noun at the time, and Rassinier never heard the term. Confirmation of my claim that, at the time, nobody called it "The Holocaust"?

Naturally, Rassinier's work was taken up by many who found that it fitted in with their theories.

It doesn't say who, or what their "theories" were. Maybe with the exception of Barnes, who had his own doubts. Bardeche, with his criticism of Nuremburg, influenced Rassinier far more than Rassinier influenced him. Otherwise, the notable people he influenced, like Faurisson, didn't have their "theories" until Rassinier drew their attention to his doubts.

Maurice Bardeche, a literary critic whose brother-in-law, Robert Brasillach, had been executed as a traitor who had collaborated with the enemy, claimed that liberated France was living a colossal lie. Who are the criminals? he asked. Those who ran concentration camps (which were unheard of until 1945) or those who dropped the most powerful bombs the world had ever seen? Rassinier was easily taken up by those who were anti-Semitic and who remained virulently so.

At least he knew better than to say that Rassinier was anti-semitic. Rassinier was never easily taken up by anybody, he was strong-willed and ferociously independent. Bardeche was indeed a friend of Rassinier's, Rassinier admired Bardeche's books on Nuremburg, they asked some questions he hadn't thought of. But he never subscribed to Bardache's ideology, see his reply to his critics in the first chapter of TRIAL. For the ideology he DID believe in, of his own creation, see THE SPEECH OF THE LAST CHANCE.

Although Rassinier himself had very rarely used the word "Jew", others were less hesitant, The editor of the leading French newspaper, Le Monde, lamented that in 1949, less than four years after the ending of the massacres, anti-Semitism and National Socialism flourished in France. There were always those who were stigmatised as being the enemies of France because they were not really French. Although the Communists were attacked because of their loyalty to Moscow, it was the Jews who were traditionally those who were `non-French'.

Not just Jews. Rassinier was always adamant that the Communists wanted to set up a Panslavic hegemony right up to the English Channel, but like any good socialist drifting towards anarchism, he was no nationalist. Again I reference CANDASSE, and the hatred of "non-French" ethnic Germans in Alsace, which so distressed him in his youth, and which he got to see again during l'Epuration. And a reminder, that the head of Rassinier's party during the 1930's was Leon Blum, who Rassinier, as the Secretary of the SFIO in Belfort, supported and campaigned for. Rassinier was the man who brought in the Belfort vote for France's first Jewish Prime Minister.

But is was amongst the Left that Rassinier found most support amongst Trotskyists, left-wing pacifists and anarchists.

I can't think of a single Trotskyite who ever supported him. He certainly did NOT support Trotskyism.

Behind all Rassinier's thinking that war was wrong and the Germans and the French had suffered from the war together,

And this is wrong?

he had depicted the French prisoners and the German guards as being assimilated in the same suffering.

See previous note, he never depicted any such thing.

The independent Left saw England, Germany, France and the Soviet Union as victims of some great international plot. The manipulators were the possessors of capital, the Americans and the Jews. The designated victims were the members of the working class in all countries. The result was the power of the United States and the creation of Israel. The by-product was the myth of the extermination of the Jews.

So did the radical Right, but before dismissing this, ask yourself - are the possessors of capital manipulative? BTW, Rassinier never said Israel was created as a capitalist plot and in fact, in articles he printed between 1945 and 1948, he cautiously supported Israeli independence.

Rassinier had his successor, in the person of Robert Faurisson, a lecturer in French Literature in the University of Lyons. He has researched Jewish archives, he has visited Auschwitz and the sites of other camps, but he has added nothing new to the ideas of Rassinier. In 1977 he was assuring his students that the gas chambers which were supposed to exterminate Jews and gypsies never existed. In 1985 a thesis was successfully presented at the University of Nantes by Henri Roques, based upon the papers of a German officer who denied that the gas-chambers existed. In 1990, another teacher at Lyons, Bernard Notin, joined in this denial. Thus consistently the same argument has been put forward for nearly fifty years.

Very close to an assertion that Rassinier's thesis has stood the test of time. Johnson might have been denounced as a "holocaust denier" for this very reason, if he hadn't died last year.

And, in France, it is traditional to wish to shock. Le choc est chic.

Il est chic everywhere, but nowhere does Rassinier try to choc. Here's something from THE LIE.

The deportees came back with hatred and resentment on their tongues and in their pens. They were not tired of war; rather they had an axe to grind and they demanded vengeance. Moreover, since they suffered from an inferiority complex -- there were only some 30.000 of them out of a population of 40 million inhabitants -- they wantonly created a story of horror for a public that always clamored for something more sensational in order the more surely to inspire pity and recognition.

THE LIES, especially, is his condemnation of those who exaggerated their camp experience for choc value.

ANALYSIS: Johnson leafed through THE LIE OF ULYSSES, but did not actually read the book. He also read the last chapter of CANDASSE, where Rassinier describes his interrogation. And that's all. I was going to write him a letter asking him about the errors, but it turned out he died last year. Phooey.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkenact (talk • contribs) 03:05, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

SPINELLI ARTICLE

The students were given the opportunity to write a research paper on a topic developed in consultation with the instructor.

In that case, he shares the blame for this.

With its solid research and insightful analysis, her paper uncovers both the faulty reasoning of the leading deniers and the hypocrisy of their claims to objectivity. —Timothy Vogt, History Department

This isn't what I'd call research, she read the books she was given. Research is when you look at the books behind the books, until you get to the source, and examine arguments in the books, and confirm or dispute them. Her analysis is not hers, but others. This is merely a book report, rephrasing what her teachers told her. She did pay attention in class, but you'll see her failure to analyze what she was told by comparing it to the originals.

I'll restrict myself to commenting only on the sections she wrote about Rassinier, it's the only part I'm qualified to comment on.

With a note I should have given earlier. In the DEBUNKING book, parts 1-6 of ULYSSES LIE are Rassinier's first book, CROSSING THE LINE. Parts 7-11 are his second book, THE LIE OF ULYSSES. Rassinier had no say in how Barnes packaged the book.

The most overt example of the deniers’ attempts to align themselves with revisionism is the title of a collection of Paul Rassinier’s works. Debunking the Genocide Myth is clearly an allusion to a 1928 WWI revisionist work, Harry Elmer Barnes’ In Quest of Truth and Justice: De-bunking the War Guilt Myth.

DEBUNKING was first published a year after Rassinier's death, and he did not choose the title, Barnes did. Debunking, a word of American origin, entered into the English language in 1923, and has no meaning in French. Her style got melodramatic, I'll leave it to the judgment of the reader if the title of a book can be "the most overt example" of anything.

Rassinier attempted to gain legitimacy not only through this tie to revisionism, but also through his claim that he merely sought to “bring people back to a sense of objectivity and, at the same time, to a better conception of intellectual honesty.”5 Rassinier’s single stated motive to disseminate the truth appears pure in light of his background as a member of the French resistance and inmate at a concentration camp.

Simplistic. I can't imagine how Rassinier could gain legitimacy by a tie to Barnes. This is followed by a big error. She quotes from the ninth paragraph of Rassinier's ten paragraph opening statement in THE LIE, a section explaining his motivations, which are multiple. Her assertion that Rassinier stated a single motive is not true.

These roles would logically embitter him against the Nazis, yet he “one day . . . realized that a false picture of the German camps had been created” and, as his story goes, he sought to expose inaccuracies to bring history more in line with the truth.6

If she had bothered to read the first part of the introduction, she would have found out that Rassinier had watched bitterness gnaw away at the fabric of his community in Belfort, and the whole of France, after the Great War. If you know of it, think of the bitterness in the American South over the "War Of Northern Aggression" that lasted at least until World War II began. I'm not going to go into the whole Augustinian argument on it, I'll simply state that bitterness is an emotional choice that a person makes, and I'm sure the reader can think of examples. Rassinier, his heart with the working class regardless of nationality, was, as he says in his intro, worried about what sort of world his son would grow up in. He chose not to be bitter, because bitterness is a poison that doesn't just affect individuals, but generations.

Despite such claims to objectivity, Rassinier’s arguments, so overtly shaped by his political agenda, betray him. As Michael Kammen, a central figure in the study of history and memory, asserts, “In recent years we have come to understand that instant and invented traditions fulfill needs that may be social, political, cultural, ideological, or any combination thereof.”7 Indeed to some extent, all people (even professional historians) revise and create history in terms of conscious and unconscious needs in the present, yet Rassinier, like Butz and Raven, has made a political tool out of the alteration of memory. In many of his works, Rassinier created a double standard in which he defined his politically-employed arguments as mere revisionism in the pursuit of truth even as he simultaneously defined survivor literature and eyewitness testimony as conspiratorial pursuits of political agendas.

I'm unfamiliar with Kammen's book, and am really turned off by its New Age title, but will note the quote she gives addresses traditions and personal needs, irrelevant to her next statement. Also, anybody who's read Thucydides or Homer knows that Kammen's claim that such discoveries are recent is false. That stuff about "the alteration of memory as a political tool" is also New Age hokum, Rassinier drew his knowledge of human memory from Norton Cru's massive book on the subject. Rassinier never said his writings were revisionist, he never once uses the term. He does have political arguments in all of his books but CROSSING, but it is true that survivor stories became a political tool from the beginning. The political value of The War Refugee Report of 1944, which includes survivor testimony, is obvious, and I can't see how you can engage in this without a political stand. You CAN take that stand without exaggerating.

In the wake of the Nuremberg Trial, which in some respects was the ultimate discrediting of national socialism, Rassinier began his “prolific publishing career, the bulk of which was devoted to vindicating the Nazis by proving that atrocity accusations against them were inflated and unfair.”8

Taken directly from Lipstadt. I would have liked to see her say that Deborah Lipstadt claims that Rassinier was devoted to vindicating Nazis: an analyses of his books shows that she was (right) (wrong). That's what an advanced college class should teach. Nowhere does Rassinier try to vindicate the Nazis. There were unfair and inflated accusations, with political agendas. See the BLACK BOOK OF EUROPEAN JEWRY for tales that cross the line into the sado-sexual. The Katyn Forest massacre was blamed on the Nazi's until the 1990's.

Rassinier utilized a popular technique to rehabilitate the Germans as he argued that the concentration camps (the worst of German crimes in his mind because systematic murder never occurred) were equivalent to the war-time conduct of the Allies. He claimed, “The behavior of the Allies during their occupation of Germany was so generally atrocious that it has been a subject that most liberal apologists for the American participation in WWII would like to forget, especially when moralizing about the crimes and the shortcomings of Germans.”9

There's no small amount of truth to Rassinier's claims about the Allied occupation, especially in the East when the borders were redrawn, and the biggest deportations of all began for German, Pole and Hungarian. When it comes to post-war concentration camps, check out U-Boat commander Herbert Werner's account in IRON COFFINS of the French camp at Fort Dietersheim, or AN EYE FOR AN EYE by John Sack. Of course, several German camps, like Buchenwald and Orieninburg stayed open for business under new management. Czechslovakia's post-war policy in the Sudetanland actually violated the Atlantic Charter with its demand for the deportation of ethnic Germans. Here Spinelli never examines Rassinier's arguments by checking to see if what he says actually happened. She simply imputes a Neo-Nazi motivation to him. Every example I've seen Rassinier give on the subject of the Allies checks out. She also crossed her wires here. She says Rassinier condemned the Allies Wartime behavior in a statement about their occupation of Germany. Rassinier did both, but she should have been more precise. I'm also uncertain if, in this context, she meant rehabilitate Nazis instead of rehabilitate German, and that parenthetic comment about the "worst of the crimes" is garbled.

In The Crossing of the Line (1950), Rassinier again attempted to rehabilitate the Nazi regime in the embarrassing years after Nuremberg by demonstrating the regime’s good intentions and subsequent betrayal by the inmates. He claimed, “When the Nationalist Socialists came to power, they decided, in a gesture of compassion, to put all of their adversaries in a place where they could be protected from public anger.” But, as Rassinier argued, “Nationalist Socialism was taken over by events and, particularly, its agents, . . . the former unemployed illiterates . . . who were selected from among us [the inmates].”10

She got the title of the book wrong, in a direct quote from LIpstadt, who gets the title wrong there. Rassinier never said any of this, and never had a good word for the Nazis. Again, she's simply quoting directly from DENYING THE HOLOCAUST. If she had read CROSSING, she would have discovered that a Czech inmate, Jirszach, who had been in the German concentration camp system since 1938, said what's quoted above TO Rassinier.

Despite the influence of the Nuremberg Tribunal on his own rhetoric, as demonstrated in his timely assertions that the inmates running the concentration camps betrayed the Reich, Rassinier also accused inmates of falsifying stories of their experiences because of their own personal agendas in the present.

...the inmates running the concentration camps betrayed the Reich. Not only did Rassinier never say that, it's so confused, I have no answer to it. Rassinier discovered both exaggerations and falsehoods among the prisoners not only after the war, but while he was in Buchenwald itself. Something that's interesting is, if you've ever read THE GULAG ARCHIPELEGO, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn also devoted a chapter to dissecting prisoner books about the Gulag, and also found stories that were exaggerated or demonstrably false.

In his writings following Nuremberg, Rassinier claimed that inmates of the camps had conspired to “wantonly create a story of horror” in which each of them paralleled Ulysses who “each day added a new adventure to his Odyssey, as much to please the public taste of the times as to justify his long absence in the eyes of his family.”11

First quote again taken out of context from the introduction to THE LIE, and the last quote was said TO Rassinier by Jirszech in CROSSING.

What was it I heard about the "revisionists" engaging in smoke and mirrors?

She asserted a link between quotes from two different books (the mirror). That link doesn't exist. (the smoke)'.

Rassinier thus described his perceptions of conspiracy theory in which Holocaust survivors took their cue from personal needs and the “taste of the times,” yet Rassinier did not directly link his conspiracy theories to Zionist agendas until the social and political climate necessitated it.

Rassinier never made any such description. He noted how survivor testimony could be warped by personal needs, something he had discovered from Norton Cru. In the 1960's, Rassinier does indeed make the Zionist link, but I'm not sure what she meant by "necessitated" it, the times had indeed changed radically, especially for France.

Ironically, and hypocritically, Rassinier posited these early arguments amidst burgeoning concentration camp literature and eyewitness testimony by discrediting all such testimony because its purveyors were supposedly doing exactly what he was: shaping the past through the eyes of the present.

Overly broad. Rassinier credits books he thought accurate. In THE LIE OF ULYSSES, he examines the exaggerations of three witnesses (two of them priests) and dissects three books. How does this discredit ALL such testimony? Rassinier's thoughts about the present and future are in his introduction, there's nothing ironic or hypocritical about it. And it was because the literature was growing that Rassinier, in his own way, began demanding quality control.

As Rassinier continued in his attempts to rehabilitate the Reich and to counter the testimony of eyewitnesses, he supplemented his earlier conspiracy theory in light of the political and intellectual context of the 1950s and 1960s. In 1951, the government of the newly created state of Israel requested reparations from Germany for the cost of the resettlement of Jews displaced by the Reich. A decade later, in 1961, Raul Hilberg published his multi-volume work, The Destruction of the European Jews, which deniers refer to as the “most systematic presentation of the Exterminationist case ever made.”12 With Hilberg’s challenge to Rassinier’s assertions that there was no intentional destruction of the Jews, and within the continuing context of German reparations to a Jewish state, the door stood open for Rassinier to link the two.

Again, he never tried to rehabilitate the Reich. Rassinier published the LIE OF ULYSSES in 1950, and didn't publish anything again on the subject until 1960. How is that a "continued attempt"? He never tried to rehabilitate the Reich in any of his writings. His connection of Zionism and reperations is not unreasonable, especially as the "continuing context" continued and continued. By the way, it turned out George Wellers lied about what Rassinier said about the reperations agreements, I'll be changing that part shortly.

Rassinier claimed that Hilberg wrote his book out of his political need to define a past in which the Holocaust occurred and which would justify German reparations paid to Israel. As Rassinier explained,

"But, in the case of Mr. Raul Hilberg it is a question of justifying by a proportional number of cadavers the enormous subsidies which Germany has paid annually since the end of the war, and continues to pay, to the State of Israel as reparations for a wrong which she did not do to Israel, either morally or legally.13"

Not her fault, it's a mistranslation. Rassinier's original, in French:

dans le cas de M. Raul Hilberg, il ne s'agit que de justifier par un nombre proportionnel de cadavres, les subventions énormes que, depuis la fin de la guerre, l'Allemagne verse annuellement à l'état d'Israël au titre de réparations d'un dommage qu'au surplus elle ne lui a, ni moralement, ni juridiquement causé puisqu'au temps des faits incriminés il n'existait pas et ce n'est qu'un problème purement et très bassement matériel

il ne s'agit que de justifier = it is not absolutely necessary to justify

The whole phrase correctly reads:

in the case of Mr. Raul Hilberg, it is not absolutely necessary to justify by a proportional number of corpses the enormous subsidies that since the end of the war, Germany deposits annually with the State of Israel as reparations, for a damage moreover, that she neither morally nor legally caused, since at the time of the accused facts it [Israel] did not exist, and it is only one problem, purely and very basely material.

Not only did Rassinier assert that Hilberg’s Destruction of European Jews was intended to shape the past in a way that would legitimize Israeli requests for aid, but Rassinier also claimed that Hilberg sacrificed accuracy to fulfill this Zionist agenda. In his view, Hilberg did “not seem to find it necessary to read anything more than what comes from the prophets and the political friends.”14

Taken out of context. Rassinier was criticizing Hilberg's version of the origin of National Socialism. The "prophets and political friends" are those who, before Hilberg, claimed a historical line that linked Martin Luther to the rise of the Nazis. The whole paragraph reads:

To have been correctly informed on this issue, it would have sufficed for him to have read "Das Weltbild des Judentums: Grundlagen des Antisemitismus" by the Austrian Bruno Amman (Vienna, 1939) or "Warum-Woher-Aber Wohin" by the German Hans Grimm (Lippoldsberg, 1954). Although the first was written by a partisan of National Socialism and the second by an independent, they are two of the most serious studies on the origins of National Socialist racism and the answer it expected to find for the Jewish problem because they are the best documented. But, Mr. Raul Hilberg does not seem to find it necessary to read anything more than what comes from the prophets and the political friends.

Rassinier is right about one thing, those books don't appear in Hilberg's bibliography.

As such, Rassinier again raised the specter of conspiracy and labeled it a Zionist conspiracy by arguing that Hilberg was listening to political friends and shaping the past in terms of Israel’s dilemmas in the present.

Wrong. This entire section begins with this paragraph:

Returning to Mr. Raul Hilberg, he begins his study several historical moments behind and announces Luther dixit, in 1963 no less! I am inventing nothing. In the introduction to The Destruction of the European Jews, he seriously explains to us, in substance, that National Socialism descends in a straight line from the anti-Semitism of the Germans in the Middle Ages, from their Catholicism, and from Martin Luther. This assertion calls for a few remarks:

In this part of the argument, Rassinier never mentions Israel at all, or Zionist conspiracy. He never said Hilberg consulted with political friends, if you read the whole section, Rassinier explains:

But, since 1933 (when Mr. Raul Hilberg was a youngster) and, especially, since 1945 (when he was just leaving adolescence) so many papers and journals have explained, for the benefit of public opinion, that National Socialism traced its roots to Roman Catholicism in the Middle Ages and to Martin Luther, and that, therefore, anti-Semitism and racism were a fundamentally German tradition, that Mr. Raul Hilberg, preeminently a man of preconceived ideas and dogmas, accepted the idea without feeling the need to verify it. In Hilberg's case, it is not even Luther dixit, but rather Vox populi dixit.

I've bolded yet another translation error. It should read

than Mr. Raul Hilberg, man par excellence of the generally accepted ideas and dogmas, accepted without testing the need to check.

Those "political friends", in context, are the populi who raised their vox in numerous documents before, during and after the war that linked Nazism all the way back to Martin Luther. Rassinier is saying Hilberg should have checked to see if that was true, rather than taking those claims unchallenged.

From this assertion, Rassinier developed the next logical step: Hilberg’s arguments about the reality of the Holocaust were thus unreliable due to his political bias.

Actually, what he says next is this.

Once having been caught in this mesh, the only thing that has to be done is to prove that the prophets and the political friends are right. However, since the position of these prophets and political friends is grounded upon various historical inaccuracies, an attempt to justify it historically results in error upon error, because everything is linked together. For example, having a false idea of the origins of National Socialist racism, Mr. Raul Hilberg could not possibly have a correct idea of its historical form.

Rassinier asserts that since Hilberg started from the wrong premise, then he can't come to a proper conclusion. Correct, if you can prove Hilberg started from a wrong premise. Rassinier DOES think Hilberg had a Zionist agenda, but that assertion has nothing to do with his criticism here.

By Rassinier’s logic here, his own view of the past, as colored by his desire to defend national socialism and to buttress his denialist claims against Hilberg’s documentation, would also be unreliable due to his own political bias. In contrast, however, Rassinier defined his shaping of the past in light of the present as necessary and objective revisionism by a “specialist”:

What the reader must recognize is that, until now, the proponents of the Zionist line—whose ‘official’ contentions of the horrors of war I have been following—have never been faced with arguments other than those from journalists. . . . The only way to shatter their arguments was to set up against them the arguments of a specialist. And, that is what I have tried to do. 15

Rassinier’s double standard is clear: there is a “Zionist line” and then there is revisionism by a “specialist.”

Again, he never defended National Socialism, he despised it. And at that time, he was just about the only specialist on this subject, few people were directly questioning the whole story. Here's that whole paragraph, which puts it in context.

And, here we are at the end of this study. It remains for me only to make an apology to the reader: this study has clearly been very long, and difficult to follow, like all that is technical by nature. But a demographic study can only be of such a technical nature. What the reader must recognize is that, until now, the proponents of the Zionist line -- whose "official" contentions on the horrors of the war I have been following -- have never been faced with arguments other than those from journalists, which have been often vague and specious, factors that have been the main reason for their lack of success. The only way to shatter their arguments was to set up against them the arguments of a specialist. And, that is what I have tried to do.

Most disconcerting about the ironic hypocrisy of the deniers’ double standards is that Rassinier, Butz, and Raven have created those paradigms with the academic historian’s analytical tools and techniques.

If you're going to make a historical argument, those would be the proper tools to use.

My last thought on this is that this young lady should be informed that overuse of the word hypocritical is ironic.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkenact (talk • contribs) 11:30, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Reliable third party sources

Much of the article, as written, seems to your own take on Rassinier's work, as 10 of your citations seem to be directly from his works. While I have found much written about Rassinier's work, there is not much abot his life from 3rd party sources. (I hope you can see why a 3rd party source is important for perspective here). When I have time, I'll try to clean up and add notes where citations are needed. 01:00, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

CITATIONS AND QUESTIONS

1. Is removing the description of him as The Father Of Holocaust Revisionism a POV push? Also, the phrase Pacifist, Socialist, Revisionist was taken from Plantin's title, and changing it to Denier would also be a POV push? The Holocaust is not the only history he disputed, there was the history of Pope Pius too, and Communist history in numerous articles. Also, why would anybody object to my pointing out that Rassinier himself never heard the phrase "The Holocaust"? AND - Barnes became the Father Of American Revisionism after World War I. Listing him as a "denier" and nothing else is hardly the whole truth.

2. Several facts were asked for in a paragraph on his time in Buchenwald; to save on footnote space, I've prefaced the paragraph with the source, CROSSING THE LINE.

3. I have something to cite linking Rassinier to Finkelstien, but it is in French, and I've already got the Wikipedia link noted. Is a footnote really necessary there? It's getting long.

4. I've removed the part about Rassinier falsely claiming that reparations to Israel were based on 6,000,000 dead. It turns out that Rassinier never said that; in the "Drama" he's perfectly aware of the terms of the 1951 agreement with Israel. In Drama, it's clear he's referring to the 1953 and 1956 reperations agreements, and at the time he wrote the Drama, new discussions were underway that would lead to the 1965 reparations agreement. Rassinier has many comments on that, since the 1951 agreement, signed in 1952, was due to expire in 1964. I'm not sure if Wellers is the one responsible for that allegation, as soon as I'm sure, I'll note it.

There's still a whole bunch more citations requested, I'll address them as the week goes on.

14 of your current 32 citations are of Rassinier himself. 5 further cites are from extreme right-wing or revisionist authors/sources. So, fully 2/3rds of your current cites are either Rassinier himself or those who would be disposed to be quite sympathetic.

You claim one person is a CIA agent (your cited source claims he was an informant for US Intelligence; not the same thing). 7 are "explanation" footnotes, where you include new info, details, or negative info about Rassinier.

While you've gone through other's work, your own seems to have a bit of slant. Any hope of adding

some reliable 3rd party souces to this mix?

Answers to your questions, in reverse order --

From Drama: Nevertheless, Germany pays to Israel sums calculated on the basis of about 6,000,000 dead.

It seems the source was Rassiner himself.

It's not important what language the cite it's in; it's who said it. The cite you have linking Rassinier and Burney is Plantain, and can't be considered 100% reliable, so I'd say yes. Do you have any other comparison of Burney and Rassinier?

2 is a comment by you.

``The phrase Pacifist, Socialist, Revisionist was taken from Plantin's title, and changing it to Denier would also be a POV push?``

Since Plantin is a denier/revisionist, his title _is_ a POV push. He's obviously written a critique about a man he admires, and who pioneered an agenda that he is pushing. By not declaring this in your treatment, I think you are being evasive at best, dishonest at worst.

``why would anybody object to my pointing out that Rassinier himself never heard the phrase "The Holocaust"?``

My take on that would be that it seems to cast doubt on whether genocide was really talked about; it's relevance isn't very high (the Holocaust was discussed, even if not by that name, and he did know about it).

In the article, about 'Drama', it is written: Rassinier critically reviewed testimonies and documents.

Well, here is some evidence that his reviews are "less then critical":

On the authenticity of ps3319 - During questioning of von Ribbentrop

> Mr. Faure: "I have no intention of showing you this document .... (T.X., p. 420)."

> That was the proof of forgery.

Interesting. But what do those "..." mean? Well, they mean that there is more in that statement. :Like: Mr Faure. "I do not intend to show you this document. I read one sentence contained in this document, and I am merely asking you if this phrase [on rejecting the Palestine option] represents your opinion or not."

So, the prosecution asked a question about a _statement_ in a document, but because the document isn't furnished to the defendent on the stand (it was part of the court record, so the defence DID have a copy), this is "proof" of a forgery? This draws into question his examination of the authenticity of documents.

On Rudolph Hoess - He says that Hoess' memoirs were written in pencil, and thus the authenticity of the work is questionable. Also, since the work isn't available for general examination, this makes it more dubious. (If this were true, then patrons of the Louvre should be able to "inspect" the Mona Lisa too).

On Miklos Nyiszli - In his book, he's discounted Hoess as a reliable witness; then he uses Hoess' testimony/confession to impeach Nyiszli. He can't have it both ways, though -- if

Hoess' testimony is unreliable, as he claims, he can't use it to prove anything about another witness.

Thus, his "critical review" of testimony is near worthless.

On Auschwitz - For Auschwitz, in the same table, Mr. Raul Hilberg gives one million dead, whereas to my knowledge no one else ever gave less than two million, (7) with most of the witnesses mentioning four.

His footnote (the (7)) actually gives one other source for "less then 2 million", and gives NO sources for either of the other figures. This calls into question his use of footnotes.

These were just some of the more outrageous problems, that _I_ found, doing my own research. If you really believe that this is "Historigraphical methodology", then you must believe Daffy Duck and Albert Einstein are both scholars in the same league.

Your own footnote on this point describes an eyewitness, where you say that Rassinier claimed there was none in the text, to the gassings.

An NPOV statement of this would be: Rassinier claimed to critically review documents ...

Sorry that's a bit long, I've been doing a bit here and there, and had saved a bit of this up. I agree it's long, but I'd like to get the NPOV and reliable sources part settled.

I have done a bit of searching for info on Rassinier, but the bulk of the info is either from anti-revisionists or revisionists, either debunking him or praising him, respectively. His work doesn't seem to attract much attention otherwise, which suggests that his main contribution is as the father of Denial/Revisionism. 19:45, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

EDIT III

14 of your current 32 citations are of Rassinier himself. 5 further cites are from extreme right-wing or revisionist authors/sources. So, fully 2/3rds of your current cites are either Rassinier himself or those who would be disposed to be quite sympathetic.

I included one more hostile quote, Olga-Wormser, as well as moving Lecache to the body. Henri Roques knew Rassinier and his son, and that piece of info is also repeated by Fresco, but it's a minor point, so I trimmed it. In a biography that quotes from his writings, a great many of the cites are naturally going to be what the author wrote. The Mark Twain bio also cites Twain extensively, as does any author's bio.

I'm not looking for a "hostile quote", but critics of his work. So far, Plantin is the most cited "critic", with a handwaving going towards other much harsher critics.

You claim one person is a CIA agent (your cited source claims he was an informant for US Intelligence; not the same thing).

Yeah, he wasn't a sworn agent, I've corrected it.

7 are "explanation" footnotes, where you include new info, details, or negative info about Rassinier.

Where I can, I've moved those to the body.

While you've gone through other's work, your own seems to have a bit of slant. Any hope of adding some reliable 3rd party souces to this mix?

Plantin is a jury-reviewed, academically accepted Master's thesis. Nobody has ever refuted a word of it. It is a 3rd party source. If you have something with that good a provenance, please let me know.

The degrees on which his thesis rested were withdrawn, the Jury was found incomplete and repremanded, but due to a technical issue, he was able to retain his titles. Plantin's works are contreversial if we grant latitude, and are not among the "generally accepted" and would certainly not be considered of "good provenance" or _reliable_. Even being generous, he is a biased source that should be regarded carefully, not used as a primary source of information.

I've already had to exclude a huge volume of work that supports Rassinier, such as The Buchenwald Report, which wasn't printed in its totality until 1999. This report also reveals that Kogon wrote L'Enfer Organise mainly on his contribution to the report, which was produced by the Psychological Warfare Division of SHAEF, something Rassinier didn't know. Martin Broszat, with the Institute of Contemporary History in Munich, backs up Rassinier in places on the Hoess confession, and his 1960 statement confirmed that mass extermination by gas did not happen in concentration camps on German soil, something Rassinier had first expressed doubts about in The Lie. Even Olga Wormser-Migot, who denounced him as an anti-semite, has expressed her doubts about witness testimony and documentary evidence in Le Systeme Concentrationnaire Nazi. Michel de Bourd spent time in Mauthausen, and in "Discussions with Michel de Bouard" in West-France, he states that when it comes to the Holocaust, "the historical record is rotten", words that Jean-Claude Pressac picked up in his forensic history of Auschwitz. Only documents that directly relate to Rassinier are used.

Answers to your questions, in reverse order From Drama: Nevertheless, Germany pays to Israel sums calculated on the basis of about 6,000,000 dead. It seems the source was Rassiner himself.

Beginning in 1956, that had been around for some time, so it wasn't original with Rassinier, especially after the agreements were renegotiated, and renegotiated again. The criticism of him I deleted was in the context of the 1951 reperations agreement, which is not what he was referring to, and never said it was. This is where Lipstadt in particular is completely mendacious, blasting Rassinier as if he was completely ignorant of the '51 agreement, whereas he refers to its expiration date. She ignores the 1953 and 56 agreements, which Rassinier was aware of. The 1956 agreement, the "Federal Law for the Compensation of the Victims of National Socialist Persecution", does agree to pay money based on "A" Loss of life (Schaden an Leben) - Spouse, parents, children. Canadian Jewish Congress Site Lest you think that this deals only with individual claims, both Novick and Finkelstein write about how this money was pirated for Israel through the Conference on Jewish Material Claims. The specific charge against Rassinier, possibly first from Wellers, is that Rassinier claims that the 1951 agreement unequivically stated that reperations to Israel were based on 6,000,000 dead, and that's just not true.

You are digging into fine details, but you said that "Rassinier didn't say that". But the words quoted above are _direct from his book_. Whatever the analysis, that is exactly what it says.

It's not important what language the cite it's in; it's who said it. The cite you have linking Rassinier and Burney is Plantin, and can't be considered 100% reliable, so I'd say yes. Do you have any other comparison of Burney and Rassinier?

I've kept the note Plantin makes, he clearly says it precedes Rassinier on the issue of the prisoner government, and notes that Burney also received "anger and indignation" from the Communists, with a cite in the footnotes.

If there was a clear link, someone else should have mentioned it.

I'm still uncertain of the Finkelstein link - the one source I had, a completely accurate history of the claims, was from a truly loathsome source, and having met Norman F., I know he'd never want to be associated with them. If I can find a decent source linking the two, I'll replace it.

Platin also cites Only from denier sites, and while they're accurate, I think you'll agree that they're not a valid source for a quote.

Plantin cites from no "sites" at all. His Primary sources are listed, some of them rare back issues of newspapers.

I'm not sure where this came from, but I can't find it. Maybe another editor?

2 is a comment by you.

All of Rassinier's articles referenced in footnotes, or footnotes about his books, were cited by Plantin, I've now noted that section and paragraph.

Since Plantin is a denier/revisionist, his title _is_ a POV push. He's obviously written a critique about a man he admires, and who pioneered an agenda that he is pushing. By not declaring this in your treatment, I think you are being evasive at best, dishonest at worst.

Nice try, but I've put my original statement about "Holocaust Revisionism" back in the title. Besides balancing out push and pull, I point out that in his closing description of Rassinier, Plantin is directly quoted as saying that Rassinier is "the father of Holocaust Revisionism". Without that clarification in the opening paragraphs, the reader will not know what he is talking about, since there is no previous reference to the phrase. This is why I have no objection to "Denial" in the title of the summation section, since it balances Plantin's statement out. On this one, I'm certain Wikipedia will agree. I've also changed a section title to the nice, neutral 1949-1967 The Author. Much more accurate, since it talks about his pacifist writings.

I actually haven't edited any content yet, so another editor can weigh in on whether "Holocaust Revisionism" is appropriate. Remember, this isn't an essay, and while it's nice to have flow from begining to end, a short explaination can suffice before the quote.

Nowhere does Plantin say he admires his subject. In fact, what makes this such an objective biography, is the complete absence of any psychological evaluation of Rassinier, which mars so many biographies. LICRA, a Zionist organization that started out in the 1920's as a Communist front, tried to have his Master's degree revoked, but it was upheld by the French courts. Nobody has ever refuted Plantin's paper; if somebody has, let me know. Plantin's later court troubles have nothing to do with either of his Masters papers.

Well, there is more to the story. Plantin definately isn't an unbiased source, and as his court troubles prove, he's pretty involved in Denial/Revisionism. When you describe a man as "father of your movement", you'd assume that the treatment he'll be given will be a good one.

My take on that would be that it seems to cast doubt on whether genocide was really talked about; it's relevance isn't very high (the Holocaust was discussed, even if not by that name, and he did know about it).

I'll think about that. If a source comes up pointing out that Rassinier denied The Holocaust before it was The Holocaust, I'll include it. As it is, it's still a little like calling George Washington an "Opponent of the Federal Reserve" (established just before World War I), simply because he opposed and quashed attempts by the Continental Congress to establish a National Bank.

Rassinier _knew_ about the genocide, he _was_ denying that 6 million were killed, he _was_ denying that the gas chambers were used. So, it's more like trying to advance an observer to the Battle for Bull Run as "never having heard of the Battle of Manassas" even though they are the same event. It might be an interesting piece of trivia (if true), but doesn't have any real relevance.

In the article, about 'Drama', it is written: Rassinier critically reviewed testimonies and documents.

Well, here is some evidence that his reviews are "less then critical": On the authenticity of ps3319 - During questioning of von Ribbentrop > Mr. Faure: "I have no intention of showing you this document .... (T.X., p. 420)." > That was the proof of forgery. Interesting. But what do those "..." mean? Well, they mean that there is more in that statement. :Like: Mr Faure. "I do not intend to show you this document. I read one sentence contained in this document, and I am merely asking you if this phrase [on rejecting the Palestine option] represents your opinion or not." So, the prosecution asked a question about a _statement_ in a document, but because the document isn't furnished to the defendent on the stand (it was part of the court record, so the defence DID have a copy), this is "proof" of a forgery? This draws into question his examination of the authenticity of documents.

You forgot to keep it in context of the previous observation Rassinier made about the examination of Steengracht, who already told them the conference never took place. The entire exchange went like this.

(Faure's first question: FAURE: You knew about this congress, I suppose?"

Skipping ahead:

FAURE. I do not intend to show you this document. I read one sentence contained in this document, and I am merely asking you if this phrase represents your opinion or not. Answer "yes" or "no."

RIBBONTROP: Then I must request you to repeat the sentences. I wish to confirm again, however, that no congress took place; it is not true.

DR. HORN: Mr. President, I object to that question, if the opportunity is not afforded the defendant to give a truthful answer.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal thinks the question was proper.

FAURE: I ask you whether this phrase which I have read out to you corresponded to your opinion.

RIBBENTROP: May I ask you to repeat the sentence. I did not understand it correctly.

FAURE: The speaker explained the reasons why the zionist solution of Palestine and similar alternative solutions must be rejected and why the Jews must be deported to the eastern territories." Was that your thesis?

RIBBENTROP: No, it was not.

There is some slight of hand going on here. When Ribbentrop protested his ignorance of the congress, Faure changed his question from "you knew about this congress?" to was what the speaker said your thesis? The question is mendacious, since whether or not the congress ever happened is not explored, if the congress never happened, Ribbentrop can't agree with that thesis, which is what Faure is trying to get him to do. Faure's question is reduced from confirmation or denial of a statement to the hypothetical, Faure could just as easily asked him if he agreed with Popeye that I yam what I yam, and the answer would have had the same value. A real waste of court time. The statement is attributed to Embassy Counselor Von Thadden, and I've never been able to find any document that says Von Thadden confirmed that the congress took place, or that he confirmed his statements. The British produced this document with some guy named Ludwig Kohlhammer said to be the source, but he, the source of the document, is never produced and examined. Faure did try to put Von Thadden's words in Ribbentrop's mouth, and there is no cross-examination of Von Thadden to verify the quote. Rassinier was right to smell a rat.

For the document, he was trying to ask Ribbentrop if that was he _policy_ of his ministry. Ribbentrop was trying to get the court tied up in details. Either the statement was or wasn't the ministry policy. The document wasn't introduced as evidence of anything direct; so even if the source was Daffy Duck, the prosecution can ask questions to the defence.

Rassinier's first point here is irrefutable: "It was also a typical breach of the Rule of Procedure No. 2 of the Tribunal itself which provided that "all the documents appended to the Indictment shall be put at the disposition of the defendants not less than 30 days before the trials". In the Steengracht interrogation six days before, when the document is first introduced, Colonel Phillimore admits it is a new document. I don't know if this breach was typical, but by golly, Rassinier is right. Rassinier notes Hilberg cites this document in Destruction without revealing its almost non-existent provenance, and he's right about that too.

I'm going to quote John Morris on this, as he explains far better then I: "documents appended to the idictment refer to things like pretrial motions, rulings on those motions, and so on. As

below, the Rules of Procedure distinguish between s[u]ch documents and documents enetered in evidence as exhibits. [...] One thing that interests me about Rassinier's account is that he would have to have searched pretty hard to find Faure's refusal to hand a document over to Ribbentrop and that he could hardly have missed the context of that refusal and the many times that Ribbentrop was handed documents by Faure. I can only conclude that Rassinier's account of Ribbentrop's testimony on the anti-Jewish congress is a complete and deliberate fraud".

Again, look back a few paragraphs. Rassinier points out that during the interrogation of Von Steengracht on May 26, it was revealed that Ribbentrop had prevented this congress from ever taking place. Look here, where Steengracht clearly says the Congress never happened.

http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/imt/tgmwc/tgmwc-10/tgmwc-10-91-07.shtml

If that's true, how could the British produce a document quoting from such a congress?

Now why might a defendant deny that a Congress would have taken place, if that congress might be evidence of the defendant's guilt? Might the defendant be lying? (Hint -- Steengracht was)

Here's the May 27th exchange with Steengracht, the day PS-3319 is introduced into evidence.

http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/imt/tgmwc/tgmwc-10/tgmwc-10-92-02.shtml

Read the part where Colonel Phillimore brings up PS-3319, and, you'll see Rassinier is correct in his suspicion, Phillimore admits that what he's giving the defense is a photostat, not the original, and if you've ever been in a court of law or consulted with a professional document examiner, you'd note that is powerful proof of forgery. Forensic document examination never takes place. Phillimore admits that this is "one of those rather inconvenient documents, a file", and signatures and dates are illegible, since these are photostats. Phillimore says he saw a stamped and dated version, but does not produce it! The defense and the court never saw the original. PS-3319 is obviously a hodgepodge of letters from various people, from different years and different subjects. Along with Kohlhammer's statement, Steengracht is constantly examined about letters he never wrote and never saw. After that, they ask for Steengracht's psychoanalysis of Von Ribbentrop, as if he'd know. Von Thadden's statement from the congress is never brought up in Steengracht's examination, there's some confusion as to whether this is an international congress, or a congress of European deputies, and when Steengracht tries to state that the congress was ordered but never happened, the President interrupts him before he can get those last words out. The only document Steengracht confirms is a letter dated three weeks after the conference supposedly took place, and that involves a better effort at anti-Jewish propaganda. Ribbentrop is examined about the conference only, nothing else in PS-3319. The prosecution never proves the witnesses are lying about the conference being prevented; they just skip to the next question. Steengracht at least got a photostat, Von Ribbentrop didn't even get that, and the lack of a stamp on the document is my guess why Faure didn't want him to see it. If PS-3319 isn't a forgery, it's a false testimony from Ludwig Kohlhammer. This would have been cleared up by examining him. I've never seen any other reference, anywhere to an Anti-Jewish conference on the dates and place specified. PS-3319 was accepted by the court as evidence, and Rassinier is right, it shouldn't have been admitted.

Rassinier, with good but not conclusive proof, alleges this as proof of forgery. Rassinier could be disproved if somebody produced the original of PS-3319, the stamped and dated version Phillimore references, but I've never heard of that happening. Rassinier is not the only person to bring up the PS-3319 problem.

And here, in electrons, you almost admit it. "not conclusive". And he doesn't _allege_, he _declares_. This is the problem. You see, to approach the subject historiographically, the correct approach would be to seek out PS-3319, and have it tested. But instead, Rassinier digs through the court record for a document which wasn't "furnished" to the defence. Although, defence council _was_ given this document, 10 days before, and Ribbentrop would have had the opportunity to examine the exhibit and have his counsel object, the crux is he wasn't _handed_ the document on the stand? Whether or not there are "problems" with PS-3319, it's obvious Rassinier hasn't even attempted to show this document forged in any where approaching a scholarly and historiographically sound way.

On Rudolph Hoess - He says that Hoess' memoirs were written in pencil, and thus the authenticity of the work is questionable. Also, since the work isn't available for general examination, this makes it more dubious. (If this were true, then patrons of the Louvre should be able to "inspect" the Mona Lisa too).

I can't find a quote about "available for general examination" I found this quote: "It follows that authenticity can only be attested by experienced specialists, the kind who work on Egyptian palimpsests, and so far the original manuscript has not been submitted to one, if my information is correct. The original document is in the Auschwitz Museum where the International Committee of the camp has custody of it, and where its inspection by scholars has been carefully restricted. Just try to examine it there!" Rassinier never said that anybody off the street should examine it. Rassinier also correctly notes that at that date, the entire manuscript had not been translated and published, but only relevant portions in popular books. Without referring to Rassinier, Martin Broszat also expresses his doubts about the Hoess confessions, as do many others.

And what is "Just try to examine it there" supposed to infer? Anyone can have _doubts_. But scholars don't speculate -- they investigate, especially if the information is available. This isn't a "critical examination", it's speculation. Again, not a scholarly and historiographically sound approach.

On Miklos Nyiszli - In his book, he's discounted Hoess as a reliable witness; then he uses Hoess' testimony/confession to impeach Nyiszli. He can't have it both ways, though -- if Hoess' testimony is unreliable, as he claims, he can't use it to prove anything about another witness. Thus, his "critical review" of testimony is near worthless.

Rassinier never tries to prove Nysizli false by claiming Hoess is true. The quote is "This Dr. Miklos Nyiszli is as much in contradiction with himself as he is with all those who testified before or after him about Auschwitz." Rassinier does not try to prove one witness true and the other false, he examines contradictions between one witness and another, and how both witnesses also have internal contradictions. Staying in theme (and in context), Rassinier goes on to note contradictions in figures in different newspapers (Nyiszli's account first appeared as a newspaper serial, sponsored by no less a figure than Jean-Paul Sarte). Different figures are published in different versions published in different nations between 1951 and 1961. The tallies never coincide. This is important. While translation errors can happen with phrases, numbers are universal. If the German magazine reports daily death figures that are different than the French magazine, the only explanation is that they got two different manuscripts.

You've managed to write alot around my point. Rassinier tackles Hoess first. He claims his tortured confession is a lie. He then compares Nyiszli's accounts with Hoess, to show inconsistency. But, if Hoess is lying, Nyiszli might be giving an accurate account, and the "inconsistency" explained through Hoess' lies. Rassinier doesn't even explore this possibility. Not quite the scholarly endevour it's claimed.

On Auschwitz - For Auschwitz, in the same table, Mr. Raul Hilberg gives one million dead, whereas to my knowledge no one else ever gave less than two million, (7) with most of the witnesses mentioning four. His footnote (the (7)) actually gives one other source for "less then 2 million", and gives NO sources for either of the other figures. This calls into question his use of footnotes.

For Auschwitz, in the same table, Mr. Raul Hilberg gives one million dead, whereas to my knowledge no one else ever gave less than two million, (7)

7. Except the Institute of Jewish Affairs of the World Jewish Congress, in Eichmann's Confederates and the Third Reich Hierarchy, which gives 900,000 (p. 18).

I don't see the problem. His footnote lists an exception to his statement. He gives the source as to my knowledge, inviting the reader to correct him if he knows any other sources with different numbers, and later in the book, specifies where "my knowlege" comes from, including the Nuremburg court, and Henri Michel and Revue d' histoire de la seconds guerre mondiale". In that same paragraph, he cites the Polish Commission on War Crimes, but doesn't give their exact figures until later in the book.

He states "no one else ever gave less then two million". He then _buries_ another source that he obvously DOES know about in the foot notes. Lastly, the citation gives the impression he has a list, or at least a source, that gives the number dead as two or more million at Auschwitz, especially the way the sentence is worded.

Readers shouldn't have to dig through your footnotes to find out what you are talking about, and your footnotes should _support_ what you are saying. A scholarly citation would support his two plus million from a few sources, not talk about an actual source that agreed with Hilberg.

In historiographic persuit, a scholar doesn't go on "their gut instincts", but rather researches and documents, so their peers can check facts and inspect sources. His footnote doesn't support his assertion, and this does call into question his use of footnotes.

By the way, Footnote 1 on that page, about Anne Frank, is not Rassinier's. It was inserted by some unknown editor, something you can tell since it cites Harwood's book, which came out long after Rassinier's death. There are several footnotes that are bookended [], those were added by editors. New translations of Rassinier's books are desperately needed.

Your own footnote on this point describes an eyewitness, where you say that Rassinier claimed there was none in the text, to the gassings.

Please read carefully. It never said that Rassinier claimed there were no witnesses; he claimed that the ones he sought out didn't stand up to his cross-examination. He reviews other witnesses in his books. As it is, for reasons listed below, I deleted that section.

An NPOV statement of this would be: Rassinier claimed to critically review documents ...

In his books, he describes his critical review of documents. Whether his conclusions or methodology were right or wrong is irrelevant to whether or not he reviewed the documents with a critical eye. In a play I was in, the review stated that my performance was unconvincing and I knew nothing about football. The critic was wrong, I played it in high school and college, but that doesn't mean for one instance I was not critically reviewed.

And it didn't escape my attention that putting in that claimed would be your own NPOV push. Nice try, but it's there in the books as a fact, Rassinier critically reviewing documents.

Daffy Duck can claim he's president of the US; he can even write a book to that effect. However, no matter how many books he writes to that effect, it doesn't make it so.

Reviewing documents "with a critical eye" is apparently different then a proper critical review, where methodology is a keystone. If one starts from the premise that 1+1=3, then any theories or

conclusions that are drawn can't be applied to our everyday arithmetic.

If you want, I'd be willing to go with "Using incorrect methodology, Rassinier critically reviewed documents .."; but as it is, it is trying to lend credibility to his "critical" review.

Sorry that's a bit long, I've been doing a bit here and there, and had saved a bit of this up. I agree it's long, but I'd like to get the NPOV and reliable sources part settled.

No please, no apologies, I can't find a halfway intelligent person to discuss this with in English, and I realize that this Wikipedia format is time-consuming to work with. The French I talk to are knowledgeable, but I need every source I can get. I'm quite grateful for the tip on the Johnson article, if you find any more, please let me know.

I have done a bit of searching for info on Rassinier, but the bulk of the info is either from anti-revisionists or revisionists, either debunking him or praising him, respectively. His work doesn't seem to attract much attention otherwise, which suggests that his main contribution is as the father of Denial/Revisionism. 19:45, 22 September 2006 (UTC

That's why I was happy to find both the Plantin biography, which calls him a revisionist, and the French army publication with information about his resistance background. When it comes to French authors of any kind from the period 1930-1960, it's going to be almost impossible to find neutral third-party comments. In the 1950's, you should have seen the hearsay that was being printed about even as monumental a figure as General DeGaulle! Just like early newspapers in the U.S., and certainly Hearst newspapers through at least the end of World War II, everything had a partisan angle, the redeeming feature being that nobody hid their partisanship. Most newspapers were organs of political parties, churches or certain societies that don't really have an American equivalent. Rassinier's articles when he was a bigshot in the SFIO not only reflect a socialist bias, but after his break with Blum over appeasement, the bias of Paul Faure's left-wing of the SFIO, a party full of fractures, factions and cliques. In the modern press, political and ideological partisanship is found mainly in specialty magazines. Read any issue of the NRA magazine, you'll see what I mean.

I imagine by now you've discovered that the denier/revisionist sites give out as many untruths and lies about Rassinier as any other. Another reason to use Plantin.

THIS EDIT: I did a paragraph count, and noted that the section of The Drama Of The European Jews was three for Rassinier, and one for Wellers. Following the NPOV guidelines, I've reduced this to two to one, and moved Vidal-Naquet's link to the end of the paragraph on statistics, though I had to described it as a criticism, since Vidal-Naquet does not go into a point by point rebuttal. This also nicely trimmed a long article.

I feel confident that this article can now stand up to any challenges. The prime source is an academically registered Master's Thesis, and those not from that source are cited. This is why I removed the "dubious sources" notation.

I'll be in on and off this week. It's unclear to me, what's the Wikipedia protocol for judging these challenges?

The prime source seems to be at least controversial, if not outright biased. I've been searching Plantin's work out -- is it available anywhere? Do you have any sources that concur with Plantin's assesments, or is he just a red herring?

The dubious sources notation isn't in regard to the sources for the article, but rather Rassinier himself. Irving was far more descrete with his maniplations with evidence, and he's considered a "dubious source", so I've replaced the tag.

I'm not sure what the formal protocol is for disputes, but if you feel that it is now NPOV and accurate, I'll ask another editor to review the article, because I don't believe these have been addressed as of yet. 02:14, 26 September 2006 (UTC)