I noticed there’s a lot of dirt being flung on wikipedia about Barnes by Deborah Lipstadt, but also noticed that she uses a very broad brush describing holocaust deniers - apparently anyone who skips over a period of time in their memoirs is a “Soft core” holocaust denier. Also, it seems that if you acknowledge that Stalin was right up there with Hitler in “Badness”, you’re likely to be called a denier as well…
To what extent might Barnes be considered a denier?
What do you mean by “denier”? Are you equating this with holocaust revisionist?
I’m not equating it with anything. I think the Rampart spring 1966 journal is amazingly powerful, but I decided to find out who this Barnes guy is and wikipedia has quite a bit of smearing about him. OTOH, Rothbard speaks/writes highly of him.
My question is what part of Barnes work might be called holocaust denial?
I don’t really know anything about the guy (looking him up now). The term holocaust denial has seemed to sprung from holocaust revisionism. Smear campaign against those who question the actual events of the holocaust. With the sensitivity of the subject, people don’t like anyone to question the actual events during Nazi Germany, and looking at all sides of the spectrum. Just like when Middle Eastern foreign policy isn’t pro-Israel it’s smeared as anti-semetic, questioning the Holocaust is labled as “holocaust denial” and anti-semetic.
The only publication I’ve read on Holocaust revisionism is Did Six Million Really Die?. It was pretty interesting, but there are more scholarly works on the subject that go more in depth. I also have The Secret King: The Myth and Reality of Nazi Occultism which goes into the allied propaganda against Nazi Germany for the use of Runes and the suppossed “Satanic rituals” they claimed to have taken place, and during that time ignored any mention of genocide.
For Lipstadt & co anyne is denier who do not subscribe to their party line. According to Lipstadt’s standard Churchill and Eisenhoover (sucked like a shopvac) is a denier because in their memoirs they failed to mention gas chambers and extermination policy. Barnes is much disliked by the party line because he and his fellow travellers caused the true causes of world war 1 to be revealed, and that just did not sit well with promoters of the League of Nations and the Versailles peace activists. After world war two Barnes and co. tried to educate the public about the true causes and fomentors of the war, but with no success. The UN/NWO crowd were ready for them.
Harry Elmer Barnes
Perpetual war for perpetual peace,
Revisionism and the historical blackout
“About as frequent as either of these ways of settling war responsibility for 1939 or 1941 is the vague but highly dogmatic statement that “we had to fight.” This judgment is usually rendered as a sort of ineffable categorical imperative which requires no further explanation. But some who are pressed for an explanation will allege that we had to fight to save the world from domination by Hitler, forgetting General George C. Marshall’s report that Hitler, far from having any plan for world domination, did not even have any well-worked-out plan for collaborating with his Axis allies in limited wars, to say nothing of the gigantic task of conquering Russia. Surely, after June 22, 1941, nearly six months before Pearl Harbor, there was no further need to fear any world conquest by Hitler.”
http://yamaguchy.netfirms.com/vegyes_/barnes.html