The CODOH Revisionist Forum

Recently on X (Twitter), the following video clip has been circulating, captioned, "Tucker Carlson can’t say whether or not Europe would be better off had the Axis Powers won WW2." (@PPC4Liberty):



The top-voted comment on this above video, from user @EndGovBribery, is as follows:

Better off in what sense? Would Europe still resemble Europe from a 100 years ago, demographic wise, yes. Would it be safe, would women be able to walk home alone at night, would children be safe, would the economy be flourishing? More than likely, considering nearly all of Hitler’s predictions for the future of Europe, if he would lose, came true. Would the west be plagued with the Bolshevik ideologies it’s plagued with now? More than likely not.

No one can accurately predict historical outcomes, especially when they are based in “ifs or buts”. Though they can point to the most likely outcomes.

Everyone says how evil Nazis were for killing 6 million Jews. Which is fair. I don’t argue that total because it’s nearly pointless right now. For the sake of argument, which I know I will get a lot of, based on that figure alone, assume that’s accurate. The nazis killed 6 million Jews. Prior to Hitler even getting into power the Bolsheviks killed millions of Christians, which western powers were more than aware of. Then the allies handed over Eastern Europe to the mass murdering Soviets. Who killed millions of more after. It was never about morality, or value of life, it was about destroying national socialism.

The Soviets killed millions of more Christians than Nazis killed Jews. That’s a fact. Indisputable. And 40-50 million people died in WW2. Then the communist ideology spread globally, which resulted in tens of millions of more deaths, (on the low end). So based on the sole cost of human life, it would have been more moral to allow Nazi Germany to fight the Soviets than it was to intervene. Because the intervention saved the communist ideology from destruction and allowed the ideology to spread and gain legitimacy when it would have been obliterated if not for external forces. Again, this lead to tens of millions of more deaths globally, (on the low end).

It has been my experience that, for most who built their interest in Holocaust revisionism earlier on, it was without any specific political goals in mind. There were just historical or logical dots that needed to be connected, facts and interpretations that had to be told, with basic principles of justice and free inquiry guiding the way. Recently, questions surrounding WW2, Jews, and NS Germany have entered further into public consciousness. Some might argue the reason as some 'right-wing extremist runaway train' without clear consensus of its origins... others would say that the behavior of WW2's victors has prompted questions about these same networks further back in time... but who knows.

One would think revisionism could soon start to gain prominence in social/academic discourse, given the growing attention to censored history and its impact on current affairs. But as the commenter above suggests, this relationship might not be so clear. While policies and worldviews similar to NS Germany might be gaining interest, we cannot assume this entails a necessary overlap with questions important to Holocaust revisionism. Some will say the question of what did or did not happen to "6 million Jews" 80-90 years ago is less important than countless others killed or hundreds of millions of others (non-Jews) now at stake.

So, whatever happens politically, and even if National Socialism gets its "fair hearing", this perhaps does not mean Holocaust revisionism will necessarily be "along for the ride". Something to think on...

I see politics like a dam that can and has prevented WWII revisionism from getting a proper public hearing. But at some point I think it's more likely than not that the political circumstances will change and the dam will be lifted. More than likely this change will be for reasons not directly related to WWII revisionism. If we think about "the Holocaust" as an Zionist/Israeli special interest, then any major fall from grace for that lobby would potentially be sufficient. (There are hints of this right now for the first time in a long time). The way I think about it is that there is an ongoing and substantial maintenance cost with keeping the Holocaust going. If or when they are ever unable to keep up with the maintenance, the Holocaust is probably toast. But the bad news is that if that doesn't happen, I think the Holocaust could persist indefinitely. Some revisionists have felt that victory was inevitable, but I have never felt that way. Being right is an advantage, but not a decisive one.

This seems pertinent to the topic at hand. It is 'old hat', but, I'm sure many have not seen it so I will leave it for posterity.

https://odysee.com/@I-Rabbi-T:3/An-Isra ... el-1996-:9

How long?

That depends entirely on how long the power structure can stay on top

The timestamp is around 0:20:00.

Archie wrote: ↑Tue Mar 18, 2025 2:00 am I see politics like a dam that can and has prevented WWII revisionism from getting a proper public hearing. But at some point I think it's more likely than not that the political circumstances will change and the dam will be lifted. More than likely this change will be for reasons not directly related to WWII revisionism. If we think about "the Holocaust" as an Zionist/Israeli special interest, then any major fall from grace for that lobby would potentially be sufficient. (There are hints of this right now for the first time in a long time). The way I think about it is that there is an ongoing and substantial maintenance cost with keeping the Holocaust going. If or when they are ever unable to keep up with the maintenance, the Holocaust is probably toast. But the bad news is that if that doesn't happen, I think the Holocaust could persist indefinitely. Some revisionists have felt that victory was inevitable, but I have never felt that way. Being right is an advantage, but not a decisive one.

I agree with all of this, except I tend to agree its inevitable for the maintenance cost alone you rightly mentioned. The support structures it needs to remain propped up are significant.

Just to add, there likely won't be "one thing" which leads to its collapse, and will be an accumulation of many things that are impossible to predict. Just over the last couple of years we have had Jeff Epstein, October 7th, "Ban The ADL", Martyr Made with Tucker Carlson, and just over recent days the JFK files. All of these things have drawn much attention, criticism and resentment towards Israel and Jewish Power. We don't know what the next iteration, or combination of things will be that draws people further and further into Revisionism, but it will happen.

HansHill wrote: ↑Thu Mar 20, 2025 5:31 pm

Archie wrote: ↑Tue Mar 18, 2025 2:00 am I see politics like a dam that can and has prevented WWII revisionism from getting a proper public hearing. But at some point I think it's more likely than not that the political circumstances will change and the dam will be lifted. More than likely this change will be for reasons not directly related to WWII revisionism. If we think about "the Holocaust" as an Zionist/Israeli special interest, then any major fall from grace for that lobby would potentially be sufficient. (There are hints of this right now for the first time in a long time). The way I think about it is that there is an ongoing and substantial maintenance cost with keeping the Holocaust going. If or when they are ever unable to keep up with the maintenance, the Holocaust is probably toast. But the bad news is that if that doesn't happen, I think the Holocaust could persist indefinitely. Some revisionists have felt that victory was inevitable, but I have never felt that way. Being right is an advantage, but not a decisive one.

I agree with all of this, except I tend to agree its inevitable for the maintenance cost alone you rightly mentioned. The support structures it needs to remain propped up are significant.

Just to add, there likely won't be "one thing" which leads to its collapse, and will be an accumulation of many things that are impossible to predict. Just over the last couple of years we have had Jeff Epstein, October 7th, "Ban The ADL", Martyr Made with Tucker Carlson, and just over recent days the JFK files. All of these things have drawn much attention, criticism and resentment towards Israel and Jewish Power. We don't know what the next iteration, or combination of things will be that draws people further and further into Revisionism, but it will happen.

I'm not sure I understand the point about "maintenance costs". Do you mean the media, museums, academics, etc whose career or reputation in whole or in part depends on the mainstream narrative? If so, I would disagree on this point: the mainstream account affords a huge industry that, if anything, gains in value with each decade since the 1960s. This industry runs a reliable profit, it is surely not a liability.

I agree that a myth like this can continue indefinitely. Consider major world religions (pick one you do not adhere to in this case): there is no prospect of any of the major world religions disappearing from history any time soon, regardless of how historically correct one is about how questionable the origins of any particular religions are.
The mainstream account of 1941-1945 is absolutely comparable to a major religion: virtually the entire moral foundations of the post-war era depend on it.
Remove the mainstream account of 1941-45 and where is the straightforward mainstream defence of post-war liberal democracy and the USA led order? It would ignite an enormous legitimacy crisis.
Even when parts of the post-war order are now subject to pressures since Trump neo-isolationism and rhetorical contempt of liberal processes, rise of populism in Europe, etc, there is ongoing disbelief amongst the mainstream over these crises and confusion over how to actually respond. The keystone of 1941-1945 is therefore not going to be surrendered as without it all political valuations are now subject to question.

I don't agree that "being right" is actually an advantage when it comes to the making and breaking of crucial myths. A myth of this kind of importance will in my view not fall to arguments as such, any more than Islam or Hinduism will end due to secular debunkings. It will pass away when it is possible for it to be replaced by another myth that sustains the particular moral truths of the era. Another catastrophe or war is probably to be required for something like this. It took the current major war in Eastern Europe for Germany to begin rearming - although current Russia and Putin are not nearly large enough historical phenomena to displace 1941-45.

In the late Roman world there were Christian criticisms of the paganism of the time from Augustine, Justin Martyr, etc but these texts are not what converted Europe, any more than the pagan texts criticising Christianity were in any way decisive - this is the case regardless of how correct or incorrect you take either set of texts to be.
This is not to say writing of books or other media is useless, only that these intellectual resources can only be politically active at the right moment in history when a myth is on the verge of being deposed by another.

Churchill wrote: ↑Mon Mar 24, 2025 6:36 pm

HansHill wrote: ↑Thu Mar 20, 2025 5:31 pm

Archie wrote: ↑Tue Mar 18, 2025 2:00 am I see politics like a dam that can and has prevented WWII revisionism from getting a proper public hearing. But at some point I think it's more likely than not that the political circumstances will change and the dam will be lifted. More than likely this change will be for reasons not directly related to WWII revisionism. If we think about "the Holocaust" as an Zionist/Israeli special interest, then any major fall from grace for that lobby would potentially be sufficient. (There are hints of this right now for the first time in a long time). The way I think about it is that there is an ongoing and substantial maintenance cost with keeping the Holocaust going. If or when they are ever unable to keep up with the maintenance, the Holocaust is probably toast. But the bad news is that if that doesn't happen, I think the Holocaust could persist indefinitely. Some revisionists have felt that victory was inevitable, but I have never felt that way. Being right is an advantage, but not a decisive one.

I agree with all of this, except I tend to agree its inevitable for the maintenance cost alone you rightly mentioned. The support structures it needs to remain propped up are significant.

Just to add, there likely won't be "one thing" which leads to its collapse, and will be an accumulation of many things that are impossible to predict. Just over the last couple of years we have had Jeff Epstein, October 7th, "Ban The ADL", Martyr Made with Tucker Carlson, and just over recent days the JFK files. All of these things have drawn much attention, criticism and resentment towards Israel and Jewish Power. We don't know what the next iteration, or combination of things will be that draws people further and further into Revisionism, but it will happen.

I'm not sure I understand the point about "maintenance costs". Do you mean the media, museums, academics, etc whose career or reputation in whole or in part depends on the mainstream narrative? If so, I would disagree on this point: the mainstream account affords a huge industry that, if anything, gains in value with each decade since the 1960s. This industry runs a reliable profit, it is surely not a liability.

I agree that a myth like this can continue indefinitely. Consider major world religions (pick one you do not adhere to in this case): there is no prospect of any of the major world religions disappearing from history any time soon, regardless of how historically correct one is about how questionable the origins of any particular religions are.
The mainstream account of 1941-1945 is absolutely comparable to a major religion: virtually the entire moral foundations of the post-war era depend on it.
Remove the mainstream account of 1941-45 and where is the straightforward mainstream defence of post-war liberal democracy and the USA led order? It would ignite an enormous legitimacy crisis.
Even when parts of the post-war order are now subject to pressures since Trump neo-isolationism and rhetorical contempt of liberal processes, rise of populism in Europe, etc, there is ongoing disbelief amongst the mainstream over these crises and confusion over how to actually respond. The keystone of 1941-1945 is therefore not going to be surrendered as without it all political valuations are now subject to question.

I don't agree that "being right" is actually an advantage when it comes to the making and breaking of crucial myths. A myth of this kind of importance will in my view not fall to arguments as such, any more than Islam or Hinduism will end due to secular debunkings. It will pass away when it is possible for it to be replaced by another myth that sustains the particular moral truths of the era. Another catastrophe or war is probably to be required for something like this. It took the current major war in Eastern Europe for Germany to begin rearming - although current Russia and Putin are not nearly large enough historical phenomena to displace 1941-45.

In the late Roman world there were Christian criticisms of the paganism of the time from Augustine, Justin Martyr, etc but these texts are not what converted Europe, any more than the pagan texts criticising Christianity were in any way decisive - this is the case regardless of how correct or incorrect you take either set of texts to be.
This is not to say writing of books or other media is useless, only that these intellectual resources can only be politically active at the right moment in history when a myth is on the verge of being deposed by another.

Re: maintenance costs, my thinking is that they have various enforcement mechanisms that they use. For example, a good portion of states now require "Holocaust education" as a matter of state law. That sort of thing doesn't just happen. Jewish groups had to lobby the state governments to pass those bills, and that requires money and organization.

One reason that the Holocaust has academic support is because Jews make big donations earmarked for Holocaust studies, endowed chairs, things like that.

The USHMM gets most of its funding from the government (which requires political influence and lobbying to maintain) and private donations. They probably get some revenue but nowhere near enough to be self-sufficient.

Censorship efforts have to be maintained. A one-time purge of social media isn't sufficient. You need ongoing monitoring and influence to make sure it stays that way.

They put millions of dollars into the Irving-Lipstadt trials. I would see that sort of expense as Holocaust maintenance cost.

Without all of this organization and money, I don't think that the Holocaust would survive that long on pure inertia.

I would agree with you that some things like movies would also bring in revenue which would offset a lot of the costs.

Churchill wrote: ↑Mon Mar 24, 2025 6:36 pm The mainstream account of 1941-1945 is absolutely comparable to a major religion: virtually the entire moral foundations of the post-war era depend on it.
Remove the mainstream account of 1941-45 and where is the straightforward mainstream defence of post-war liberal democracy and the USA led order? It would ignite an enormous legitimacy crisis.
Even when parts of the post-war order are now subject to pressures since Trump neo-isolationism and rhetorical contempt of liberal processes, rise of populism in Europe, etc, there is ongoing disbelief amongst the mainstream over these crises and confusion over how to actually respond. The keystone of 1941-1945 is therefore not going to be surrendered as without it all political valuations are now subject to question.

The 'post-war order' emerged in reaction to a whole series of blunders and bad moves from 1919 to 1945. If by 1941-45 you're referring to the Holocaust, then no, pretty much none of the postwar architecture of international agreements, much less the reconstruction of west European societies had the slightest thing to do with the Holocaust.

The postwar era has continued because it's postwar - there were no interstate wars in Europe whatsoever between 1945 and 2022, only some civil wars and breakups (Greek civil war, Yugoslavia, some conflicts on the edges of the former Soviet Union), and the Soviet interventions in a few East Bloc states. The east-west division and Cold War ensured an end to major war in Europe. Many of the immediate 1945 decisions were enacted to guarantee this, including expelling ethnic Germans from Eastern Europe to take away the nominal excuses used by Hitler in 1938-39, which triggered WWII with the invasion of Poland.

The US had inadvertently played havoc with the world by its inconsistent mix of diplomatic isolationism coupled with massive investments in the 1920s, followed by the effects of the Great Depression, exacerbated by protectionist tariffs. Planning the postwar order meant addressing these problems, and several involved reorganising the international economic order (Bretton Woods, GATT, IMF, World Bank), others like the Marshall Plan ensured European economic recovery and a general rise in prosperity. The world economy has been much bumpier since the 1970s, with much deindustrialisation coupled with harsher fiscal policies under the auspices of neoliberalism, so there is much to gripe about in western societies as a result because of how these sea changes have impacted different regions and areas. But it would be impossible to fully turn the clock back to a 1950s idyll, and none of the 1920s-1940s economic models on offer (including German Grossraumwirtschaft) were either viable or could have sustained long-term growth.

The US tolerated authoritarian regimes during the Cold War especially if they were anticommunist or even just anti-socialist (Chile, anyone?). That was also true in Europe and nearby (Greece, Turkey, Portugal, Spain), even more true in Latin America and Asia. Nonetheless, democracy was regularly extended through to the 1990s, but has been in retreat worldwide for the past two decades. Even so, the peaceful change of government in Poland, frequently compared to Orban's illiberal Hungary, shows things can change. Trump's second term is making it much harder for populists in Europe to follow the exact MAGA model, at least for now.

The very fact that the US order included the rest of the world is also why the notion that '1941-45' or the Holocaust is the 'moral foundation' of the postwar order is such bunkum. It just isn't true for most of the world, which had no involvement in anything like it. Even Japanese crimes don't resonate as much in the US-led part of the world order, it's China which fusses more about them now, after only rediscovering Japanese crimes in the 1980s. If one wants to find a European society where 1941-45 is truly a state religion, it's the Russian Federation.

The foundations of the post-1945 order in western Europe included measures to reverse much older events - 1922 in Italy, 1933 in Germany, the collapse of existing democracies into authoritarian one party states. But as noted there were other states where authoritarianism persisted - resulting in SNL's long-running joke about Franco by the 1970. Conversely, the majority of Germany's allies in WWII were pluralist multi-party polities, and several were entirely democratic.

The persistence of communist states in Eastern Europe made many of the authoritarian measures and forms of repression seen up to 1945 even less attractive, as did abuses elsewhere in the world (Latin American dictatorships, Iran after 1979, etc). There are good reasons why the death penalty has been abolished in much of the world, and why the rule of law is seen as a good thing, and secret police forces as bad things. All of which might be encouraged by memories of 1922-1945 (for western Europe) as much as memories of 1917-1991 (for eastern Europe).

International law certainly developed rapidly after 1945, but many of the measures were stymied by the Cold War or reasons of state for quite some time. The US did not ratify the UN convention on genocide until 1988 and did so with reservations. Human rights were defined in the 1940s but grew in prominence only in the 1970s (with an anti-East Bloc twist via the Helsinki accords). The precedent of international criminal tribunals such as Nuremberg wasn't followed up until the 1990s, and the US then rejected the authority of the International Criminal Court, as it does to this day. The laws of war changed - the Geneva Convention was updated in the 1940s, but it wasn't until the 1970s protocols that the Anglo-American way of (aerial) war was ostensibly restricted more fully - just in time for 'precision targeting' that still goes awry whenever PGMs are used.

International humanitarianism has a longer history than going back to 1941-45, but key events in WWII did set up post-1945 frameworks and expectations. One was the famine in Greece in 1941, which led to the breaking of the British naval blockade and indeed the foundation of Oxfam in 1942. After the temporary relief of UNRRA et al at the end of WWII, it was really the post-decolonisation period that caused humanitarianism to take off. That was also when UN peacekeeping missions proliferated, all familiar stuff over the past six decades or more.

Refugee and asylum issues had already caused massive fallout after WWI - especially because of the Bolshevik Revolution driving so many Russians into exile, but also because of the aftermath of the Armenian genocide. International conventions on refugees and political asylum were reformed after 1945 but the entire era of 1933-45 had seen multiple crises, including the classic form of political refugees. And so it was in the first phase of the Cold War, e.g. the wave of emigres from Hungary after 1956, following earlier waves of East European refugees to Sweden, Canada and elsewhere. Estonians in Sweden and Ukrainians in Canada did much to establish multiculturalism in those societies, well before non-European refugees and immigrants started knocking on western societies' doors. US involvement globally meant that the Cold War, and soon enough the Islamist convulsions from 1979, sent refugees from Asia and the Middle East to America and elsewhere - Vietnamese boat people, Iranians landing in LA fleeing Khomeini, and so on.

The memory of WWII in Europe has always been broader than focusing on the Holocaust. One can identify a Europe-wide emphasis on resistance in the first decades after 1945, and the greater prominence of political KZ prisoners over Holocaust survivors. The Gaullist myth of resistance papered over a further reckoning with collaboration (after the initial violence of the epuration and postwar trials), which crumbled by the 1970s to reconsider Vichy. Sure, the resentful losers on the farther right had gripes about the postwar consensus, and the FN represented them in France, but eventually veterans of the Charlemagne Division died off.

WWII became cultural memory 30-40 years after the event, as predicted in several models of how collective and cultural memory work. It was only in this context that the Holocaust emerged as a mainstream phenomenon, essentially at the end of the 1970s. And even after this, most European societies have not ditched their entirely local memories of German occupation and violence, with several intensifying their interest as time goes on (Poland, anyone?). The same also was true of West Germany, where the Nazi past as a whole became supercharged from below in the 1970s-1980s. This is when the local KZ or subcamp, the local euthanasia centre, the local treatment of foreign workers became such concerns in Germany.

Post-1990, states as well as the European Union became much more involved. The notion that the Holocaust is the 'moral foundation of the post-war order' is only true for the post-communist era of European integration. The US ended up being not dissimilar, since while the USHMC was set up under Carter, it wasn't until 1993 that USHMM finally opened - after the end of the Cold War. The preceding 15 years after 1978 were certainly marked out by ever increasing attention in the US, Europe and globally, but the 40th anniversary of D-Day, the 40th anniversary of the end of WWII also mattered. The end of the Cold War seemed to enable further reckonings with WWII that had not been possible after 1945 to the same extent, depth or fervour. That, plus the recurrence of genocide and ethnic cleansing in Bosnia and Rwanda keeping the past topical.

In the same era, Nazi-sympathising far right parties experienced strong headwinds because of public opposition and because of anti-denial laws. The NPD scored some of its worst results when it was most 'revisionst'. Populism took over, leaving neo-Nazis much less prominent. Thus the death of the BNP and rise of Nigel Farage's many anti-European and populist vehicles. Nick Griffin and the BNP certainly tried rebranding themselves, but reminders of their 1980s antics were immensely damaging and derailed their prospects. But a decade later, Brexit happened, and populism seemingly triumphed - with much noisy rhetoric about Dunkirk and analogies between the EU and Third Reich.

The cultural memory of WWII and the Holocaust has been intensely sustained over the past 30-40 years, in part because of the dying-out of the war generation (the 'Greatest Generation' in the US, thus all the war movies since Saving Private Ryan through to Flags of Iwo Jima), in part because of momentum, in part because yes, now it seems like a foundational myth. But the nature of supposedly "foundational myths" is that they aren't actually foundational. The lag in memory 30-40 years after the event exposes this. And this model works just as well on how memories of Jesus shifted in early Christianity as on why WWII loomed much larger and was interpreted perhaps differently by the 1980s through to the current decade.

Memories will shift over time, as can be clearly seen with the changing sectional and 'national' memories of the American Civil War; it really does take a generation after an event to establish certain paradigms, and those can persist for decades before changing tack in some regards, then resurging later on. The memorialisation of the ACW and what to do with statues or domesticated commemoration of Confederate generals has been a culture-war flashpoint in the US for 10-15 years now.

China taking more of an interest in WWII and events like the Nanjing massacre from the 1980s onwards shows the dynamic is worldwide. It doesn't matter whether Nanjing is known to Americans in the Midwest (although Iris Chang's book was a best-seller in the 1990s, and Chinese Americans a lot more numerous than they were in the 1960s). The point is how national memories work, and how they then are internationalised, or become objects of international recognition. Thus the wave of resolutions about the Holodomor in 2022 after Russia invaded Ukraine.

WWII as a whole is a more amorphous memory for the world, and one can see quite easily that there are still significantly more WWII movies made internationally as well as in the US or Europe than there are Holocaust movies. Russia, China and other societies aren't going to shut up about the war and sometimes for very different reasons to why the war persists as a bad memory in Poland or a source of delusion in Britain. Time will likely diminish some of this, and also diminish the seeming current prominence of the Holocaust, but the way that WWI memories have been institutionalised as tourist destinations and objects of ongoing interest even after the 2014-2018 centenary suggests that hoping for the full disappearence of a memory rather than it being supplanted by something else or subsiding, is wishful thinking.

At state level, a reminder that there are 27 states in the EU and 32 in NATO so including for now the US, Canada and UK, all with specific memories and interests bundled together. Even if these international organisations broke up or some states made this or that move to react against the 'memory regime', are all the others going to follow suit? Twitter/X can be exceedingly deceptive in making people think 'their' ideas, whether liberal or radical right, are actually popular or prevailing. Just look at the backlash in Canada these past few months to Trump's toddler tantrums.

Archie wrote: ↑Mon Mar 24, 2025 8:05 pm Re: maintenance costs, my thinking is that they have various enforcement mechanisms that they use. For example, a good portion of states now require "Holocaust education" as a matter of state law. That sort of thing doesn't just happen. Jewish groups had to lobby the state governments to pass those bills, and that requires money and organization.

One reason that the Holocaust has academic support is because Jews make big donations earmarked for Holocaust studies, endowed chairs, things like that.

The USHMM gets most of its funding from the government (which requires political influence and lobbying to maintain) and private donations. They probably get some revenue but nowhere near enough to be self-sufficient.

Censorship efforts have to be maintained. A one-time purge of social media isn't sufficient. You need ongoing monitoring and influence to make sure it stays that way.

They put millions of dollars into the Irving-Lipstadt trials. I would see that sort of expense as Holocaust maintenance cost.

Without all of this organization and money, I don't think that the Holocaust would survive that long on pure inertia.

I would agree with you that some things like movies would also bring in revenue which would offset a lot of the costs.

First you need to establish baselines for how much is spent on the past as a whole. Then consider that in Europe, funding might come from the state together with EU monies, in the US private donations and endowments are set up pretty effectively to be offset against taxes (donations) or earn money from interest (endowments).

US higher education institutions had a collective endowment of $837 billion in 2024, arts and humanities attract little state funding compared to sciences, and are also much cheaper to run. Museums in the US have endowments of $58 billion but seem to eat into them more often than universities and colleges. USHMM still makes most of its revenues from private sources, some of which include ongoing grants from charitable foundations, i.e. yet more endowments which spend the interest.

So once things are set up, especially if endowments are involved, maintenance is not difficult and quite normal. European state and EU funding is taken from revenue and taxation, but the sums involved while large at first glance are small fractions of total expenditures. The Auschwitz State Museum seems to get by on 50% direct revenue, 30% funding from the Polish government, totalling millions not necessarily tens of millions or more, with a lot going to preserving the physical site.

It's also worth bearing in mind that there are many eras of history which will be fairly well represented across US academia that attract almost no significant funding. I very much doubt that the French government funds US researchers wanting to work on the French revolution or Napoleon, while no European country, certainly not Britain, will fund medievalists. They're perhaps the baseline - and they show that some things just become commonly accepted. 'Napoleonic' and 'medieval' rack up quite enormous numbers of hits in the NYT archive - and neither has been 'promoted' or hyped necessarily. They're just there, without necessarily benefiting from museums or movies on a regular basis.

There are certainly areas which do benefit from soft diplomacy - the DAAD is the German academic exchange service which is one potential source of research funding for foreign scholars to visit Germany but also for German scholars to research in the US and UK, and thus largely on British and American history. An awful lot of Middle Eastern money has been invested and donated to finance Middle Eastern Studies and Islamic theology in US and British universities.

As proportions of college faculty, or compared to the number of museums of all kinds in the US, the Holocaust is probably a lot smaller than you might think; but this reflects the overall balance of academics in history and related disciplines, or the range of museums one might find. Most of this effort (and expenditure) is also invisible in the public sphere, as in it doesn't make headlines.

What does make headlines are the ways that politicians, journalists, commentators, intellectuals in general but also artists of various kinds might refer to particular touchstones, which they all do essentially at zero cost. Some might refer to the Holocaust or bring it up because they are Jewish, sure, but think back to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez invoking 'never again' in the first Trump administration when immigrant detainees were practically caged. AOC studied international relations and economics at university, she's also firmly on the left and has been highly critical of Israel over its treatment of Palestinians for a long time. Yet still she reached for 'never again' and triggered a lot of Holocaust discussion as a result, back in 2019. No lobby group, interest or foundation paid a penny to get her to reach for a Holocaust comparison.

Churchill wrote: ↑Mon Mar 24, 2025 6:36 pm
I'm not sure I understand the point about "maintenance costs". Do you mean the media, museums, academics, etc whose career or reputation in whole or in part depends on the mainstream narrative? If so, I would disagree on this point: the mainstream account affords a huge industry that, if anything, gains in value with each decade since the 1960s. This industry runs a reliable profit, it is surely not a liability.

Yes but only partially. By "maintenance cost" there is a financial aspect obviously (which even if we zero in on that, you are probably being overly generous by saying it will only gain in value each year. Should something catastrophic happen to USA economically, then Israel and by extension the Holocaust Industry will be dealt a significant blow economically).

But I'm actually talking more broadly than merely financial, in that there are intangible costs - maybe "maintenance effort" is a better phrase than maintenance cost. As Archie rightly mentioned, the effort that goes into monitoring and censoring Holocaust denial online, and even offline is not insignificant. As a very recent example - this week we had the (alleged) doxing of Thomas Dalton, and immediately the University of Helsinki is "investigating" this. I have no idea what this means, but whatever resources they are committing to this "investigation", including the opportunity cost of those resources being diverted away from other research, is "maintenance effort" of the Holocaust.

Similarly there was a viral video that went around Social Media just last week of a comedian who exposed the degree to which the Israeli goverment had engaged with him and other comedians to facilitate a "free" trip to Israel for publicity. For the purposes of this post, I will just assume he was being honest about this. The Israeli government then via various channels, requested the comedians portray Israel favourably, and monitored his Social Media presence, and quite possibly his stage material too, thereby "enforcing" pro-Israeli content.

All of this is "maintenance effort" that comes at a cost that is finite.

Churchill wrote: ↑Mon Mar 24, 2025 6:36 pm I agree that a myth like this can continue indefinitely. Consider major world religions (pick one you do not adhere to in this case): there is no prospect of any of the major world religions disappearing from history any time soon, regardless of how historically correct one is about how questionable the origins of any particular religions are.
The mainstream account of 1941-1945 is absolutely comparable to a major religion: virtually the entire moral foundations of the post-war era depend on it.

Yes fair point, I agree that none of the major world religions are likely to disappear today, this century, or next. However that's nothing inherent to religions, as religions disappear all the time, but rather a comment on the infrastructure and "maintenance efforts" that these major world religions spend to ensure their existence. This means, building monuments, expending resources to make new converts, punish apostates, etc etc etc.

Churchill wrote: ↑Mon Mar 24, 2025 6:36 pm I don't agree that "being right" is actually an advantage when it comes to the making and breaking of crucial myths. A myth of this kind of importance will in my view not fall to arguments as such, any more than Islam or Hinduism will end due to secular debunkings.

Again I agree, but being right cannot hurt. We probably agree that what matters is power, and to a lesser extent, influence.

Churchill wrote: ↑Mon Mar 24, 2025 6:36 pm
It will pass away when it is possible for it to be replaced by another myth that sustains the particular moral truths of the era. Another catastrophe or war is probably to be required for something like this. It took the current major war in Eastern Europe for Germany to begin rearming - although current Russia and Putin are not nearly large enough historical phenomena to displace 1941-45.

Agreed, but this is just another way of saying "it will pass when the support structures and maintenance efforts are no longer needed / viable / possible / surpassed by something more important"

One would think revisionism could soon start to gain prominence in social/academic discourse, given the growing attention to censored history and its impact on current affairs.

Holocaust revisionism, is not history. It is a non-history, denying the historical evidence and then failing to evidence what happened. That non-history is censored in some places, mainly Europe, but even where there should be a lot of political support, such as the Arab world, it has little prominence. It has prominence amongst conspiracy theorists, who are prepared to believe something the size of the Holocaust, which involved millions of people from many countries, can be hoaxed.

A non-history, that is supported by clearly logically flawed arguments, is not going to gain any prominence in any academic discourse. Revisionist ignorance of witness memory and recall, archaeology and even basic chronological evidencing, is obvious to most academics. Any academic should see through its evidential and logical fails and the academics who have fallen for it, are heavily criticised and even censured.

Revisionism will die off, hopefully as critical thinking improves and false beliefs in conspiracies fades. It is presently fashionable to believe in hoaxes, from Sandy Hook to terrorist attacks to celebrity news. Pretty much any big news story instantly attracts conspiracy theorists, who think they are clever, when they are clearly not. At some point, it will become more fashionable to ridicule the conspiracists.

One of the most fascinating aspects of the Orthodox position is its over-reliance on eyewitness testimony, physical evidence be damned. The eyewitnesses all corroborate each other, that should be enough!

Well, at a time when there in incredible resentment towards, and ever growing numbers of open grievances with Zionism, Israel, organised Jewish power and influence - which is only being accelerated by current events - that kind of "evidence" is becoming completely laughable to modern audiences.

Some Gen-Z edgy teenager who already hates Israel, thinks Jews did 9/11, thinks Epstein was a Mossad operative, thinks Jews killed JFK, and everyone lied about the 40 beheaded babies, isn't really going to buy Jankiel Wiernik's version of events when he hears about it, as much as you want him to! "B-b-but he's corroborated by the train transports!!" will be met firmly with "he's a lying sack of shit", and Orthodoxy won't have anywhere to go from there.

Except perhaps more hate crime laws.

HansHill wrote: ↑Sat Mar 29, 2025 5:39 pm One of the most fascinating aspects of the Orthodox position is its over-reliance on eyewitness testimony, physical evidence be damned. The eyewitnesses all corroborate each other, that should be enough!

You are misrepresenting the historical position. Yes historians tend to emphasise witness evidence, as it provides the best narrative, but the reason why those witnesses are used, is because they are corroborated by physical, documentary and other evidence. Once a witness is corroborated, the concentration is on their narrative.

Physical and other evidence is far from "be damned", it just ends up in the background, as witnesses do not need to be repeatedly corroborated. As for witness corroboration, revisionists ignore when accused and victim agree, when Nazi and Jew agree and when people from multiple different backgrounds, nations and languages agree, that is the strongest of corroboration.

Well, at a time when there in incredible resentment towards, and ever growing numbers of open grievances with Zionism, Israel, organised Jewish power and influence - which is only being accelerated by current events - that kind of "evidence" is becoming completely laughable to modern audiences.

Some Gen-Z edgy teenager who already hates Israel, thinks Jews did 9/11, thinks Epstein was a Mossad operative, thinks Jews killed JFK, and everyone lied about the 40 beheaded babies, isn't really going to buy Jankiel Wiernik's version of events when he hears about it, as much as you want him to! "B-b-but he's corroborated by the train transports!!" will be met firmly with "he's a lying sack of shit", and Orthodoxy won't have anywhere to go from there.

Except perhaps more hate crime laws.

That kind of bias influencing people, rather than the evidence, is a worry. No matter what one person thinks of another, they should be neutral and follow the evidence. That Wiernik's claims about mass transports are corroborated by Nazi documents, should be enough for people to accept he is being truthful. If that stops happening because he is a Jew and Jews cannot be trusted, that is rampant anti-Semitism and hate is spreading, which may mean there does need to be new laws.

SanityCheck wrote: ↑Mon Mar 24, 2025 9:55 pm

Churchill wrote: ↑Mon Mar 24, 2025 6:36 pm The mainstream account of 1941-1945 is absolutely comparable to a major religion: virtually the entire moral foundations of the post-war era depend on it.
Remove the mainstream account of 1941-45 and where is the straightforward mainstream defence of post-war liberal democracy and the USA led order? It would ignite an enormous legitimacy crisis.
Even when parts of the post-war order are now subject to pressures since Trump neo-isolationism and rhetorical contempt of liberal processes, rise of populism in Europe, etc, there is ongoing disbelief amongst the mainstream over these crises and confusion over how to actually respond. The keystone of 1941-1945 is therefore not going to be surrendered as without it all political valuations are now subject to question.

The 'post-war order' emerged in reaction to a whole series of blunders and bad moves from 1919 to 1945...

This response to my post is over 2,000 words long.
Did you have a specific agreement or disagreement with any particular statement you quoted?

HansHill wrote: ↑Tue Mar 25, 2025 11:34 am Yes but only partially. By "maintenance cost" there is a financial aspect obviously (which even if we zero in on that, you are probably being overly generous by saying it will only gain in value each year. Should something catastrophic happen to USA economically, then Israel and by extension the Holocaust Industry will be dealt a significant blow economically).

But I'm actually talking more broadly than merely financial, in that there are intangible costs - maybe "maintenance effort" is a better phrase than maintenance cost. As Archie rightly mentioned, the effort that goes into monitoring and censoring Holocaust denial online, and even offline is not insignificant. As a very recent example - this week we had the (alleged) doxing of Thomas Dalton, and immediately the University of Helsinki is "investigating" this. I have no idea what this means, but whatever resources they are committing to this "investigation", including the opportunity cost of those resources being diverted away from other research, is "maintenance effort" of the Holocaust.

Similarly there was a viral video that went around Social Media just last week of a comedian who exposed the degree to which the Israeli goverment had engaged with him and other comedians to facilitate a "free" trip to Israel for publicity. For the purposes of this post, I will just assume he was being honest about this. The Israeli government then via various channels, requested the comedians portray Israel favourably, and monitored his Social Media presence, and quite possibly his stage material too, thereby "enforcing" pro-Israeli content.

All of this is "maintenance effort" that comes at a cost that is finite.

I think we actually disagree here.
The financial reserves (from private donors) and also the emotional motivations for this cause of historical policing are essentially limitless, I don't see how this changes.

I think the real cost here is more a moral one, or perhaps one of ego and self-regard. The European (and Anglosphere) liberal democracies (more particularly, their core elites) have a self-image of themselves as living in countries of historically unprecedented freedom and open scientific enquiry. This cannot be reconciled in the long-run with the increasingly punitive laws against political speech (in the US, this now takes the analogous form of putting direct pressure on social media companies) and the criminalisation for treating certain historical topics sceptically. You either live in a state with free citizens able to discuss political topics in the public square or you do not.

Aaaannnd perhaps I spoke too soon in the OP in this thread...