WANTED - A Psychiatric Diagnosis of Nazi Holocaust Denial

Why would anybody deny the Nazi holocaust when evidence proves many Jews were exterminated?

(LONDON) - While I was reading some of the responses on various web sites to my last post (Understanding the real significance TODAY of the Nazi holocaust), the following question occurred to me. Does it really matter HOW Jews were exterminated in Nazi concentration camps? Even if you chose to believe that gas chambers were not part and parcel of the Nazi extermination programme, there is irrefutable evidence that Jews were shot, hanged, burned, injected and starved to death and, also, that many died from diseases that were only terminal because of the conditions of their incarceration.

That’s why I stand by my view that holocaust denial (and most aspects of holocaust revisionism) is evil on a par with the commissioning of the slaughter and the slaughtering itself. But repeating myself on that score is not the purpose of this short article.

It is to request that an eminent psychiatrist or two (or several) come forward to explain what goes on in the minds of holocaust deniers.

I can understand without assistance why many Jews deny the Nakba, Zionism’s ethnic cleansing of Palestine. They believe, wrongly in my view, that coming to terms with this truth of history is not in their own best interests. (In my view this Jewish refusal to acknowledge the terrible wrong done to the Palestinians by Zionism in the name of all Jews is the prime obstacle to peace based, as it must be, on justice for the Palestinians and security for all).

But why would anybody want to deny the Nazi holocaust when there really is so much irrefutable evidence that many Jews were exterminated? Some people apparently have a need to deny it. What is that need? What drives it? What do holocaust deniers think there is to be gained from and by denial?

Something else that puzzles me is why some holocaust deniers feel compelled to assert that I am Jewish when I am NOT.  I quite often use the term “the Gentile me” to signal that fact. Obviously they have a need not to believe me.

And how about this... There are some holocaust deniers who assert that I am not what my writing (book and articles) and public speaking prove me to be - a passionate and fierce critic of Zionism’s colonial enterprise. In their view I am a clever propagandist for Zionism. In a rant on my own web site (you can see it in the comments below my last post), Kevin Boyle put it this way: “You are a gatekeeper. A covert supporter of the enemy that will destroy us all. You are worse than the transparent liars because you pose as one of us, an true enemy of Zionist.” (Kevin, your English needs correcting. I presume you mean “a true enemy of Zionism.”)

Are they simply crazy or what?

Unless they are Zionist assets, they have no understanding of the fact that holocaust denial only helps to reinforce Zionism in its evil ways.

In conclusion for now I have a suggestion for all holocaust deniers. Visit the BBC’s web archive Witnessing the Holocaust. (As my readers know, I don’t give it a capital H).

The two most moving and powerful archived pieces are the original eye witness reports broadcast by Edward Ward from the Buchenwald concentration camp on 1 April 1945, and Richard Dimbleby from the Belsen concentration camp on 19 April 1945, 

I will not be at all surprised if some holocaust deniers assert that those two very well respected and much admired BBC correspondents were lying and that I am stupid for believing them.

On reflection it seems to me that some holocaust deniers, especially those who are driven by rabid anti-Semitism, are as deluded in their own way as Netanyahu and all support the Zionist state of Israel right or wrong are in their way. They deserve each other and I say, quoting Mercutio in Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet - “a plague on both your houses.”

When the lady “not for turning”, turned

By Alan Hart

The news of the death of Britain’s Iron Lady, Baroness Thatcher, promoted me to recall my favourite story about her. In 1980, in the first of her three terms as prime minister, she said in a speech to her Conservative Party’s Conference: “You turn if you want to. The lady's not for turning.” Because I was personally engaged with her at the time, I know that she performed her first U turn in her first 48 hours of being prime minister.

I had visited the exiled Shah of Iran and Queen Farah in Morocco. When I met with Farah she was alone and I could see she had been crying. I put a gentle arm around her shoulder and asked her what was wrong. (My relationship with Farah was very special because I had assisted her efforts to educate her husband about what was going wrong in Iran before the revolution). There was a handwritten letter on her desk. She picked it up. “This is not helpful,” she said.

“Who is it from?” I asked.

“Ashraf”, she replied. (Princess Ashraf, the Shah’s twin sister, was safe and secure in America with her billions).

“What does it say?” I asked.

Farah read from the letter. “You bitch. You and your leftwing ideas are to blame for what has happened.”

But that insult was not the cause of Farah’s tears. She went on to tell me that King Hassan had called on them earlier in the day. (I knew that because he was taking his leave of them when I arrived. I thought he was embarrassed and very uncomfortable). He told them he was under great pressure and had to ask them to leave Morocco.

“We have nowhere to go,” Farah said.

I told her that I knew Jack Lynch, the prime minister of Ireland, very well. I proposed that I should call him and she agreed.

I got through to him without delay and went straight to the point. The Shah and Farah needed a temporary place of refuge. Ireland would be ideal, I suggested. Could he consider it? Jack’s response was also straight to the point. “No!”

Farah then told me that her husband had an estate in Surrey. I said I would return to the UK, take a look at it, and if keeping the place safe would not impose too much of a burden on our security services, I would ask Prime Minister Jim Callaghan if he would allow the Shah, Farah and their children to have temporary refuge there.

My exchange with Prime Minister Callaghan at Number 10 Downing Street was very brief. He said: “No way. The party would not allow it.”

Britain was four weeks away from a general election and few if any commentators doubted that the Labour Party would be defeated and Margaret Thatcher would become Britain’s first woman prime minister. I telephoned her and said that I had something important I needed to discuss with her in private. She said she would receive me on Sunday morning at Scotney Castle, her country home. (It was only about 40 minutes drive from where I then lived in Kent).

When I arrived at 10 o’clock, Margaret was outside pruning some roses. She took me inside and we chatted for more than an hour. She did almost all of the talking, telling me how she was going to change Britain and Europe. She left me in no doubt that she had no time for Europe’s male leaders. She loathed them all. While we talked, Denis was pacing in front of the fire place, drink in hand, and muttering insults of his own. One I recall was “David Owen is a c * * t.”

Eventually Britain’s prime minister to be said, “Now what is that you want to discuss with me?”

I told her about the Shah’s urgent need for temporary refuge. She was very open to the idea that it could be in the UK, at his country home in Surrey. But here’s the main point... Just before we said goodbye, she took both of my hands and held them close to her breasts. Then, with real passion in her voice and eyes, she said: “You tell His Majesty that I would be ashamed to be British if we could not give him refuge after all he has done for us.”

Before I drove away we agreed that I would report back to the Shah and Farah and that I would call her, Mrs. Thatcher, at about 8.30 on the morning of her election victory.

The Shah had two questions after I had briefed him.

The first was: “Is she definitely going to win the election?”

I replied, “Yes, probably with a 40-seat majority.” (That turned out to be a correct forecast).

The Shah’s second question was: “Can we believe her?”

I replied that I was in no doubt that she really, really meant what she had said when she said it, but only time would tell.

At 8.30 on the morning of her election victory, I telephoned Margaret. “Hello, Alan,” she said, “I’m cooking Denis’s breakfast.”

I asked her when she expected to have a decision on the Shah’s request for refuge. She replied: “I need to talk with Peter but I’m sure it will be alright. (Peter was Lord Carrington who was going to be her foreign secretary), Give me 48 hours and call me again.”

When I did make the follow-up call, Prime Minister Thatcher was not available to talk to me. She had performed her first U-turn and didn’t want to acknowledge it.

At the time I imagined that the foreign office advice to her had been something like the following: “Lady, you must be out of your mind. If we grant the Shah refuge, we’ll have enormous problems with the ruling mullahs and their fanatical followers.” It is possible, even probable, that she was so advised, but recently de-classified cabinet papers indicated another reason. Britain was already doing business with the mullahs.

The moral of the story? Leaders sometimes want to do what they believe to be right but are not allowed to do so. This, I believe, is the fix President Obama is in on policy for Israel-Palestine.

Alan Hart is a former ITN and BBC Panorama foreign correspondent who covered wars and conflicts wherever they were taking place in the world and specialized in the Middle East.

Over more than four decades Alan Hart enjoyed intimate access to, and on the human level friendship with, leaders of both sides including Golda Meir, Mother Israel, and Yasser Arafat,Father Palestine. (Others included Moshe Dayan, Shimon Peres, Nasser, Sadat, King Faisal, King Hussein—the list is long). He also participated at a leadership level in the secret politics of the search for peace in the Middle East (as an intermediary between Arafat and Peres when it was presumed that Peres was headed for leadership).

Alan recently announced the American edition of his epic book, Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews, Vol. 1: The False Messiah. This is Alan Hart’s epic three-volume journey through the propaganda lies and the documented truth of history as it relates to the making and sustaining of what has come to be called the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.

He blogs on AlanHart.net, and tweets on twitter.com/alanauthor

See also:

• President Obama’s opportunity to speak truth to power: Part 1
• President Obama’s opportunity to speak truth to power – Rahm Emanuel does it for him – Part 11
• Open Letter to President Obama: Change the Rules of the Game
• An Appeal to the American People

Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews. The sub-title of this volume is Conflict Without End? It takes the story from the 1967 war and the creation of Greater Israel to the present and the question: Is Peace Possible?

Will President Obama be allowed to deliver an acceptable amount of justice for the Palestinians in order to achieve peace for all and, if not, what’s the most likely future for the region and the world?

• "... immensely readable and a magnificent piece of work ..."
  -- Clare Short, MP and Int'l Development Sec't in Blair Govt
• "... elucidates the dangers involved in the unconditional Western support for Zionism and its oppressive policies against the Palestinians."
  -- Ilan Pappe, Leading Israeli revisionist Historian
• "... principled, ... historical, ... excellent, even heroic, in effort and scope."
  -- Mark Bruzonsky, founder, MiddleEast.org; World Jewish Congress, first Washington Representative