Personally, when I am debating the Holocaust narrative, I sometimes try to avoid being forced on the defensive by first accusing the Holocaust believers of pushing a "racist conspiracy theory" of Nazis secretly collaborating with one another to exterminate all of the Jews, using "code-words" and then destroying all evidence of this massive crime. Indeed, Swiss historian Philippe Burrin in his 1994 book "Hitler and the Jews: the Genesis of the Holocaust" admitted (page 13) that :
"There subsists no document bearing an extermination order signed by Hitler... In all likelihood, the orders were given verbally... here the traces are not only few and far between, but difficult to interpret."
The wartime documents, especially the Wannsee protocols, define the "Final Solution" as a policy of resettlement for Jews. Holocaust believers sometimes remark that the nazis used "Code words" or "euphemisms" and secretly meant "extermination" when they said "resettlement."
Of course, there is no question that individuals and groups "Conspire" together to achieve devious aims. If you search the news "arrested for conspiracy" you will find literally millions of news articles detailing criminals being arrested on various charges of conspiracy. No serious individual can deny that individuals "conspire" with others to achieve devious aims. In fact, it is so common for governments to have engaged in conspiracies that the term "False flag" was invented to describe them. Wikipedia lists many examples, and defines it as "a covert operation designed to deceive; the deception creates the appearance of a particular party, group, or nation being responsible for some activity, disguising the actual source of responsibility."
A conspiracy theory is defined as "A hypothesis alleging that the members of a coordinated group are, and/or were, secretly working together to commit illegal or wrongful actions including attempting to hide the existence of the group and its activities. In notable cases the hypothesis contradicts the mainstream explanation for historical or current events."
The use of the term "Conspiracy theory" first gained popularity starting in the 1950s, although it was used in a handful of instances before that, after the philosopher Sir Karl Popper popularized the expression in his article "The Conspiracy Theory of Society" (https://archive.is/CuXwt). Usage skyrocketed in the 1960s during the Warren Commission, which investigated the JFK assassination. In April 1967, the CIA wrote a dispatch using the phrase "Conspiracy Theories/theorists" and offered recommendations on how to discredit these claims. The dispatch was marked "psych" (short for "psychological operations" or disinformation) and "CS" for the CIA's "Clandestine Services" unit. In 1976 this dispatch was released due to Freedom of Information Act requests.
Here are some screenshots of the memo:
And an excerpt:
Code: Select all
2. This trend of opinion is a matter of concern to the U.S. government, including our organization.
The aim of this dispatch is to provide material countering and discrediting the claims of the conspiracy theorists, so as to inhibit the circulation of such claims in other countries. Background information is supplied in a classified section and in a number of unclassified attachments.
3. Action. We do not recommend that discussion of the [conspiracy] question be initiated where it is not already taking place. Where discussion is active addresses are requested:
a. To discuss the publicity problem with and friendly elite contacts (especially politicians and editors) , pointing out that the [official investigation of the relevant event] made as thorough an investigation as humanly possible, that the charges of the critics are without serious foundation, and that further speculative discussion only plays into the hands of the opposition. Point out also that parts of the conspiracy talk appear to be deliberately generated by … propagandists. Urge them to use their influence to discourage unfounded and irresponsible speculation.
b. To employ propaganda assets to and refute the attacks of the critics. Book reviews and feature articles are particularly appropriate for this purpose. The unclassified attachments to this guidance should provide useful background material for passing to assets. Our ploy should point out, as applicable, that the critics are (I) wedded to theories adopted before the evidence was in, (II) politically interested, (III) financially interested, (IV) hasty and inaccurate in their research, or (V) infatuated with their own theories.
4. In private to media discussions not directed at any particular writer, or in attacking publications which may be yet forthcoming, the following arguments should be useful:
a. No significant new evidence has emerged which the Commission did not consider.
b. Critics usually overvalue particular items and ignore others. They tend to place more emphasis on the recollections of individual witnesses (which are less reliable and more divergent–and hence offer more hand-holds for criticism)...
c. Conspiracy on the large scale often suggested would be impossible to conceal in the United States, esp. since informants could expect to receive large royalties, etc.
d. Critics have often been enticed by a form of intellectual pride: they light on some theory and fall in love with it; they also scoff at the Commission because it did not always answer every question with a flat decision one way or the other.
f. As to charges that the Commission’s report was a rush job, it emerged three months after the deadline originally set. But to the degree that the Commission tried to speed up its reporting, this was largely due to the pressure of irresponsible speculation already appearing, in some cases coming from the same critics who, refusing to admit their errors, are now putting out new criticisms.
g. Such vague accusations as that “more than ten people have died mysteriously” can always be explained in some natural way ...
5. Where possible, counter speculation by encouraging reference to the Commission’s Report itself. Open-minded foreign readers should still be impressed by the care, thoroughness, objectivity and speed with which the Commission worked. Reviewers of other books might be encouraged to add to their account the idea that, checking back with the report itself, they found it far superior to the work of its critics.
The dispatch suggested the following strategies to discredit dissenting opinions:
- Claim it is impossible for so many people to be quiet about such a big conspiracy
- Have people attack the claims and reference official reports
- Claim that eyewitness testimony isn't reliable
- Claim that it's old news and nothing new has emerged since the event took place
- Simply ignore the claims unless there is a large discussion taking place
- Accuse the theorists of ulterior motives (political or financial motivation)
It is not difficult to see these exact methods employed against Holocaust revisionists.
Professor Lance Dehaven-Smith published a book in 2013, proving that the term "Conspiracy Theory" was employed by the CIA in attempt to refute critics of the Warren Commission's report, and the term was heavily promoted in the mass media.
It doesn't take long to notice many of these same strategies being employed when debating believers in the Holocaust. The "Conspiracy theory" smear often implies that the allegation is inherently flawed, but what happens when a conspiracy theory is proven to be true? A theory is simply a supposition, a hypothesis or guess: and can be invalidated or proven upon further analysis. When something is claimed to be a "conspiracy theory" and yet turns out later to be true, is it no longer a conspiracy?
Cass Sunstein, Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs admits:
Of course some conspiracy theories, under our definition, have turned out to be true. The Watergate hotel room used by Democratic National Committee was, in fact, bugged by Republican officials, operating at the behest of the White House. In the 1950s, the Central Intelligence Agency did, in fact, administer LSD and related drugs under Project MKULTRA, in an effort to investigate the possibility of “mind control.” Operation Northwoods, a rumored plan by the Department of Defense to simulate acts of terrorism and to blame them on Cuba, really was proposed by high-level officials...
The standard holocaust narrative is rife with conspiracy "theories." Some examples are:
- Hitler's 1923 Munich Beer Hall Putsch; an attempt to overthrow the German government
- the 1933 Reichstag fire; where Nazi general Halder testified at the NMT that Goering admitted to setting fire to the building and falsely blaming the communists
- the 1934 Night of the Long Knives; a purge in which Hitler intended to secure absolute power over Germany
- the 1938 Crystal Night (Kristallnacht) riots against the Jews
- The 1939 Gleiwitz incident; where allegedly Nazis faked attacks on Germans to justify an invasion of Poland
- The Katyn forest massacre, in which the USA helped Russia cover it up and blame it on Germany (https://www.independent.co.uk/life-styl ... 22111.html)
The "Conspiracy theory" attack is sleight of hand trick, intended to obfuscate the claim by forming in the mind of the reader a distortion of what revisionists actually believe. The "Holocaust denier" denigration works in a similar manner, and for many that word choice manages to trick people into thinking that revisionists deny all suffering of Jews during WWII. The casual reader will often say something like "How can someone deny the Holocaust? Haven't they seen the piles of bodies? They can go to the camps, they're still there in Europe!" which is totally misunderstanding the position: The "Deniers" claim hundreds of thousands perished in the camps, especially at the end of the war. So the piles of bodies (due to starvation, disease, allied bombing) aren't being denied, nor are the camps themselves. This rhetorical deception is used extensively by industry promoters, as are other inaccurate arguments such as claims that revisionists believe "all of the survivors/nazis lied" despite the fact that some Nazis did deny exterminations/gassing, as did some people interned in the camps.
How do you respond to accusations that you are pushing a "conspiracy theory" by "denying the Holocaust"??