The official blog of the site “Der Stürmer” – http://der-stuermer.org
DOWNLOAD THE BOOK IN PDF FORMAT.
Inconvenient History seeks to revive the true spirit of the historical revisionist movement; a movement that was established primarily to foster peace through an objective understanding of the causes of modern warfare.
An Update
Source: https://codoh.com/library/document/censorship-map-of-europe/
On page 33 of the first, 2014 edition of his book Breaking the Spell, Dr. Nicholas Kollerstrom included a map showing the countries in Europe that had enacted laws dictating Holocaust historiography at gunpoint. (The map is on p. 34 of the 7th, 2024 edition.) I remember spending quote some time creating this map, using various online resources to figure out which country has which laws. Over the years, I have updated this map, and included a simple list in my Holocaust Encyclopedia in its entry on censorship.
When the latest case of a law banning Holocaust skepticism was enacted in Finland in early 2026, I wrote an article about this. I mention in this article that one motivation for Finland to introduce such a law was pressure from the European Union. I wondered back then how Finland could succumb to that pressure while other European nations which are already in the EU or strive to be accepted managed to resists, especially in the Balkans.
While writing my most-recent book in History at Gunpoint, I revisited the issue with the aim of getting things updated. During my research, I stumbled across an excellent resource in this regard on the Bosnian website trial.ba of the organization Trial International, which grew out of a dedication to document the massacres committed by all sides during the war fought mainly on that country’s territory between 1992 and 1995, to help victims and hold perpetrators accountable. This organization compiled a list containing information for all European countries regarding any laws they have enacted banning denial of the Holocaust and/or of other genocides or mass atrocities.[1] This table was uploaded in February of 2020, hence cannot contain legislative changes made after that date.
Going through that table, I realized that my map and related table had been incomplete all along: Northern Macedonia had introduced a general anti-genocide denial law already in 2004, hence three years before the European Union 2007 issued its decision to make such a law mandatory for all member states. While pure denial can get you between one to five years in that country, if it is combined with the “intent to instigate hate, discrimination or violence,” a prison term of at least four years is imposed, with no upper limit given, probably meaning that even a life sentence is theoretically possible.
Albania followed a year after Europe’s mandate, but its general ban on genocide denial is embedded in a law regulating online offenses, so denial is punishable only if it is “deliberately disseminating to the public through computer systems.” The punishment threatened is between 3 and six years.
Malta followed a year later, in 2009, albeit only if general “genocide denial” is done in a way likely to incite to violence or hatred, or likely to disturb public order. Therefore, I changed the color of Malta on the new map from red (unconditional ban) to grey (conditional). Also, I added Malta to the list of countries in the encyclopedia, where it had been omitted for some inscrutable reason. The threatened punishment is 8 months to two years imprisonment.
Montenegro enacted a general ban on genocide denial in 2010 for cases conducted “in a manner which can lead to violence or cause hatred against a group,” and if that genocide has been declared a fact by “a final and enforceable judgment of a court in Montenegro or of the International Criminal Tribunal.” The threatened punishment is between six months and five years. The expression “a manner that can lead to violence or cause hatred” is too diffuse to qualify as a conditional ban. Even the most rational and unemotional scrutiny of a genocide can lead someone to develop feelings of hate, and push some deranged mind to resort to violence. At least words like “is likely to cause” are needed to qualify a law to be a conditional ban only. Hence, I have given Montenegro the red card on the map.
2011 saw three European countries introduce laws banning genocide denial in general, Croatia made it conditional by mandating that the offense needs to be perpetrated “in a manner likely to incite to violence or hatred,” while Cyprus did not include such a qualifier. Bulgaria made it conditional on the offense posing “a risk of violence or hatred”, but there is no qualifier on how high the risk must be, so it doesn’t count as a conditional ban. Croatia imposed prison terms of up to 3 years, Cyprus of up to 5 years, and Bulgaria from a minimum of one year up to five years. Cyprus defines genocides as something that has been determined by an “irrevocable decision of an international court,” meaning that the findings of the IMT show trial probably also count as incontestable.
After Spain’s High Court had thrown out that country’s first, 1995 attempt at banning Holocaust denial as unconstitutional, Spain introduced a general ban on genocide denial in 2015, making that act an offense, if it “promotes or favors a climate of violence, hostility, hatred or discrimination.” That law has led to the conviction of Holocaust skeptic and National-Socialist activist Pedro Varela in 2024, whose considerable activities of promoting National-Socialist ideas was moreover judged to be an indirect justification of that past regime’s genocidal acts. Denial plus NS ideology pushed the judiciary over the edge, sending Varela to prison for 18 months. Spain’s new anti-denial law was criticized by Spanish legal scholars as unconstitutional, especially since its “qualifier” requires a mere hypothetical risk of “violence, hostility, hatred or discrimination” by merely favoring a climate.[2] It can’t be more wishy-washy. Varela’s case is currently moving through the various appellate stages, and may be heard by the Constitutional High Court within five years or so. Until then, I have given Spain a conditional status, as denial itself isn’t able to trigger the law, but very much its convolution with NS propaganda.
Next on the list of countries I missed is Serbia, which introduced its law in 2016, with a thin conditional veneer of acts that “could lead to violence or incitement to hate.” Defining genocide like Montenegro via decisions of national courts or the ICC, Serbia imposes of six months to five years on convicted offenders. That’s a red card for Serbia.
Before we move on the rest of the Balkan countries and some special cases, an explanation is due regarding the UK, which does not have a formal law banning Holocaust skepticism at all, as many have rightly observed. I have included it on the map and in my list anyway, with the year given 2017. This is not based on the adoption of any law, but on case law created by the case of musical artist Alison Chabloz. She was indicted under Section 127(1) of the Communications Act of 2003 for communicating via “a public electronic communications network” (internet) messages that the judges considered “grossly offensive.” The offenses are said to have been committed by satirical songs on Holocaust survivors and their tales which Chabloz wrote and performed. I loved the songs when I listened to them back in 1916 and 1917. I thought the melodies were pleasing, voice and instrumentals were excellent, and the lyrics were written with wit and intelligence. But turning Holocaust skepticism from dry scholarship into living art evidently is a crime.[3] Therefore, the UK definitely meets the criterion of conditionally banning Holocaust skepticism, if combined with disrespectful statements about victims and/or survivors. This was highlighted with the case of Ian R. Millard, who mixed general expressions of disbelieve in the mainstream Holocaust narrative with anti-Jewish statements.[4] Castle Hill Publishers and their successor Armreg Ltd, the two most-productive media outlets of Holocaust skepticism in this century, have operated from the UK since 1998, and have never been impeded or harassed. It is therefore safe to say that, as long as it is boringly scholarly, Holocaust skepticism is legal in the UK. But I changed the year to 2018, the year of Chabloz’s first conviction.
Bosnia had the new Article 145a of its penal law banning general genocide denial imposed by that country’s High Representative in 2021.[5] It was not well received by many among the country’s Serbs, hence caused quite some tensions. It requires that denial be done in a “manner likely to incite to violence or hatred,” and comes with prison terms between six months and five years. It defines genocide by a final court verdict, hence the IMT probably qualifies. Bosnia’s law is primarily designed to ban denials of genocidal killings committed during that country’s civil during the 1990s war rather than directed against Holocaust skeptics.[6] The expression “likely to incite to violence or hatred” was taken straight from a EU Framework Decision on Combating Racism and Xenophobia.[7] While this expression is suppose to prevent the stifling of academic freedom, member states are free to include or omit such a requirement. Bosnia has included it, making this a case of conditional banning of genocide denial. This turns the country grey on my map (it has been red so far).
Moldova has two laws, one banning general genocide denial (Art. 135² of its Criminal Code, one to three years imprisonment) and one introduced also in 2021 specifically banning Holocaust denial (Article 1761), likewise with prison terms between six months and five years. It defines the Holocaust as “the systematic persecution,” “annihilation and extermination of a large number of members of the Jewish community by Nazi Germany, as well as by its allies and collaborators, during the period 1933-1945” (Art. 13419).[8] Denial is not a crime, however, if done “in the interest of art or science, research or education.” I am reluctant to grant Moldova the grey conditional status for this, because any popular but non-polemical statement could be denied that privilege, and judiciaries have the tendency to define the “interest” of science and research by that community’s consensus, which tends to exclude skeptic voice. So that’s a red card for Moldova.
Armenia’s Article 136 of its penal code, completely overhauled in 2022, threatens with up to four years imprisonment those who deny genocides in general “for the purpose of provoking hatred, discrimination or violence.”[9] It’s neighbors Turkey and Azerbaijan have so far refused to adopt similar laws, as those nations’ citizens at times engage in that kind of activity regarding the genocide Armenians suffered during the First World War. I grant Armenia a conditional status, which more radical faction in its society don’t like, who want to tighten that law even more.[10]
Also in 2022, Belarus implemented a law against genocide denial. However, their law merely bans the denial, minimization or justification of the genocide committed against the Belarusian people by German forces during World War II, even though no such thing occurred. The massacres presumably committed by the German wartime Einsatzgruppen against both local Jews and Jews deported to Belarus from central and western Europe were rebranded by Alexander Lukashenko’s regime as victims of the general populace.[11] While the law effectively denies Jews their main-victim role, its primary function is to suppress modern political dissent, in particular by stigmatizing pro-democracy opposition groups as ideological “descendants of Nazi collaborators.”[12] Of course, strictly speaking, all countries with such laws use it to oppress what they stigmatize as “Nazis” or “Nazi” sympathizers, whether that label is accurate or not. Since Belarus’s law does not ban Holocaust skepticism as such, but only events that are said to have happened on Belarussian soil, I have not shaded that country on my map.
The last country to add to the new list is Kosovo. Mimicking its big sister Albania, Kosovo followed suit a year later, in 2023, by adopting a similar law unconditionally banning general genocide denial if disseminated to the public through computer systems, also with prison terms between 3 and 6 years.[13]
Therefore, if we ignore the European Union as an umbrella organization with its framework decision, 41 countries currently enforce the writing of history to one degree or another at gunpoint.
Hence, leaving aside Belarus, only six European countries have not (yet) formally banned Holocaust skepticism in one form or another: Iceland, Ireland, Denmark, Estonia, Azerbaijan and Georgia:
|
# |
Year |
Country |
Max. Term |
|
1. |
1986 |
Israel |
5 years |
|
2. |
1990 |
France |
1 year |
|
3. |
1992 |
Austria |
20 years |
|
4. |
1994 |
Germany |
5 years |
|
5. |
1995 |
Belgium |
1 year |
|
6. |
1995 |
Netherlands (conditional) |
1 year |
|
7. |
1995 |
Liechtenstein |
2 years |
|
8. |
1995 |
Switzerland |
3 years |
|
9. |
1997 |
Luxembourg |
2 years |
|
10. |
1997 |
Slovenia |
2 years |
|
11. |
1998 |
Poland |
3 years |
|
12. |
2001 |
Slovakia |
3 years |
|
13. |
2001 |
Czechia |
3 years |
|
14. |
2002 |
Romania |
3 years |
|
15. |
2002 |
Australia (HRC)* |
– |
|
16. |
2004 |
Macedonia |
5 years |
|
17. |
2007 |
European Union (framework law) |
3 years |
|
18. |
2007 |
Portugal (conditional) |
5 years |
|
19. |
2008 |
Albania (computer distribution only) |
6 years |
|
20. |
2009 |
Latvia |
5 years |
|
21. |
2009 |
Malta (conditional) |
2 years |
|
22. |
2010 |
Hungary |
3 years |
|
23. |
2010 |
Montenegro |
5 years |
|
24. |
2011 |
Croatia (conditional) |
3 years |
|
25. |
2011 |
Bulgaria |
5 years |
|
26. |
2011 |
Cyprus |
5 years |
|
27. |
2012 |
Lithuania |
2 years |
|
28. |
2014 |
Russia |
3 years |
|
29. |
2014 |
Greece (conditional) |
3 years |
|
30. |
2015 |
Spain (conditional) |
4 years |
|
31. |
2016 |
Serbia |
5 years |
|
32. |
2016 |
Italy |
6 years |
|
33. |
2018 |
UK (conditional) |
2 years |
|
34. |
2021 |
Ukraine |
5 years |
|
35. |
2021 |
Bosnia (conditional) |
5 years |
|
36. |
2021 |
Moldova |
2 years |
|
37. |
2022 |
Armenia (conditional) |
4 years |
|
38. |
2022 |
Belarus (very limited, see text) |
5 years |
|
39. |
2022 |
Canada |
2 years |
|
40. |
2023 |
Kosovo (computer distribution only) |
6 years |
|
41. |
2024 |
Sweden |
2 years |
|
42. |
2026 |
Finland |
2 years |
|
conditional: only in conjunction with verbal abuses and/or threats, likely to cause violence or hatred. * a human-rights commission can issue a cease-and-desist order. If ignored, it can lead to prosecution for ignoring a government order. |
|||
Censorship map of Europe, 2026: red: the writing of history is prescribed by penal law; light grey: historical dissent is an offense only if committed concurrently with disparaging victims, witnesses and/or survivors, or statements likely to cause violence and/or hatred. Since all EU member states must enact such laws, the white spots on this map will steadily decrease in years to come.
Source: https://www.renegadetribune.com/jewish-invention-myths-desalination/
by Karl Radl
With having debunked so many ‘jewish inventions’ claims; there are certain commonalities that you notice. One of the most common I see is where jews seem to blithely claim ‘they invented’ something they patently didn’t.
A water-related example of this – other the similarly stupid claim that jews invented the concept of the air well – (1) is the claim by Rabbi Stephen Wise of Ontario, Canada that jews invented desalination.
He writes that:
‘Making Salt Water Drinkable: Having very little rainfall but plenty of seawater led Israelis to pioneer desalination, which removes salt and minerals from salt water, thereby turning salt water into drinking water. Beyond watering its own agricultural industry, Israel has manufactured China’s largest desalination plant and many others elsewhere.’ (2)
Wise here is being intentionally deceptive since he claims that jews ‘pioneered desalination’ as well as that this is a ‘modern invention’ when in truth it is as old of the hills.
Desalination is first mentioned by Aristotle in his work ‘Meteorology’ where he writes that:
-‘The action of this cause is continually making the sea more salt, but some part of its saltness is always being drawn up with the sweet water. This is less than the sweet water in the same ratio in which the salt and brackish element in rain is less than the sweet, and so the saltness of the sea remains constant on the whole. Salt water when it turns into vapour becomes sweet, and the vapour does not form salt water when it condenses again. This I know by experiment.’ (3)
Indeed, desalination was well-known in Europe and China from around the time of Aristotle (fourth century B.C.) onwards and was widely used by European sailors on board ships as a way to create drinking water – for example by the crews of the English explorers Sir Richard Hawkins and Sir Walter Raleigh during the sixteenth century – and the first patents for processes of desalination were issued in 1675 (No. 184) to William Walcot and 1683 (No. 226) to Robert Fitzgerald in England. (4)
Large-scale desalination was first pioneered by the French chemist Alphonse Rene le Mire de Normandy in 1851 – who was awarded a British patent (No. 13714) for his invention that year – (5) while the first land-based mass desalination system was pioneered by the United States in the 1860s and installed on Florida islands of Key West and Dry Tortugas but used established French technology. (6)
Given that Israel didn’t exist till 1948 then no Israel didn’t ‘invent’ or ‘pioneer’ desalination in the slightest.
Thanks for reading Semitic Controversies! This post is public so feel free to share it.
References
(1) On this please see my article: https://karlradl14.substack.com/p/jewish-invention-myths-water-and
(2) https://reformjudaism.org/israeli-inventions-work
(3) Aristotle, Meteo., 2: 358b: 12-18
(4) Cf. James Birkett, 1984, ‘A Brief Illustrated history of Desalination: From the Bible to 1940’, Desalination, Vol. 50, pp. 17-52
(5) Idem.; also https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Dictionary_of_National_Biography,_1885-1900/Normandy,_Alphonse_Ren%C3%A9_Le_Mire_de
(6) UNESCO, 2010, ‘Desalination and Water Resources: History, Development and Management of Water Resources’, Vol. I, 1st Edition, Eloss: United Kingdom, p. 412
Source: https://www.renegadetribune.com/jewish-invention-myths-the-american-transcontinental-railroad/
by Karl Radl
Another of the so-called ‘jewish inventions’ listed by Marnie Winston-Macauley at ‘Aish’ is the claim that jews were responsible for the creation of the ‘American Transcontinental Railroad’ by which she actually means the Central Pacific Railroad.
The basis for this claim is her assertion that one of principal architects – Theodore Judah – was in fact jewish. (1)
The problem of course is that Theodore Judah was not jewish in the slightest, but rather the son of an Anglican minister and his wife from Connecticut and Massachusetts respectively who both came from purely European racial stock. (2)
One suspects that Winston-Macauley – if she’s not simply being dishonest – is here mistaking Theodore Judah for Judah P. Benjamin, the famous jewish Attorney General of the Confederate States of America who was active around the same time as Judah.
However, it is worth finishing off this short piece by noting the sheer scale of what Theodore Judah achieved in engineering terms, which has long been known (3) but it is worth quoting J. David Rogers and Charles Spinks’ summary of it from a 2019 academic symposium on Judah and his legacy so the reader can see him as the European engineering genius that he truly was:
‘In purely engineering retrospect, Judah’s achievements would seem nothing short of providential, especially in comparison to modern route surveying efforts. With a minimal survey crew utilizing crude instruments and only draft animals for transportation, Judah was able to lay out a remarkably accurate alignment across the most difficult natural obstacles undertaken up until that time (1861).’ (4)
Thanks for reading Semitic Controversies! This post is public so feel free to share it.
References
(1) https://aish.com/91795029/%60
(2) Sebastian Visscher Talcott, 1994, [1883], ‘Genealogical Notes of New York and New England Families’, 1st Edition, Clearfield: Baltimore, p. 561, n. 79
(3) John Galloway, 1941, ‘Theodore Dehone Judah – Railroad Pioneer’, Civil Engineering, Vol. 11, Nos. 10-11, pp. 586-588 & 648-651 (available here: http://cprr.org/Museum/Galloway_Judah_ASCE/index.html)
