"Hitler grasped quite early on that antisemitism would be a powerful vote catching force in Germany; [he] had no compunction against riding that evil steed right up to the portals of the chancellery in 1933; but that once inside and in power, he dismounted and paid only lip service to that part of his Party creed...Himmler is known to have visited Auschwitz in 1941 and 1942. Hitler never did...Many people, particularly in Germany and Austria, had an interest in propagating the version that the order of one madman originated the entire tragedy. Precisely when this order was given was, admittedly, left vague...In the newly discovered Goebbels diaries we learned that Hitler lectured the Gauleiter [governors] in September 1935 that ‘above all’ there were to be no excesses against the Jews and no persecution of non-Aryans...Every other historian has shut his eyes and hoped that this horrid, inconvenient document would somehow go away."

Such controversial evidence is challenged with great heat. Historian Gordon McFee agreed that no link has been found between Hitler and the Holocaust order, but assumes by probability that such an extensive order could not have been engaged without his active hand:

"Most experts have agreed that an action on the magnitude of a mass genocide, with the resultant possible ramifications, could not have proceeded without Hitler's personal approval. Until now, no written decision from Hitler has been found...The recent discoveries cannot be called a written decision (which, if it ever existed, was almost certainly destroyed by the end of the war), but they are certainly unequivocal confirmation that a clear decision was taken by Hitler."

From such evidence one can observe that a completely unavailable link in the Holocaust timeline has been ignored and the source has been determined solely by probability. For this reason, greater investigations must be engaged to determine the true causes and source of such broad crimes. McFee continues to criticize Irving and Holocaust "revisionists" by the degree of motive: "In my opinion there is force in the opinion expressed by Evans that all Irving's historiographical "errors" converge, in the sense that they all tend to exonerate Hitler and to reflect Irving's partisanship for the Nazi leader. If indeed they were genuine errors or mistakes, one would not expect to find this consistency. I accept the defendants' contention that this convergence is a cogent reason for supposing that the evidence has been deliberately slanted by Irving."

Liberal and far-right motives play a great role in our portrayal of history, rendering a great deal of our knowledge of the causes inconclusive and potentially inaccurate, reinforcing historians' need to study into these causes greatly without bias. Without an unbiased investigation of the contributions of both parties (Jews and Germans) to the Holocaust without "presentism" (current ideas that influence our scope of the past), our knowledge and depictions of the Holocaust will instead continue to be largely inaccurate and short-sighted, polluted with bias and ulterior just as equally so as the blind and ignorant at the far-right.

Page 5 of 5 :: First | Last :: Prev | 1 2 3 4 5 | Next