In responding to the post below I have considered issues far outside the scope of revisionism and principally have considered the political implications of a racist ideology and its inevitable outcome. Thus it is tangentially relevant to soc.history and alt.revisionism but I have directed followups to t.p.m since it is principally consideration of the political lessons to be drawn from the history of the NAZI party that I deal with.   In article <1993Apr14.121823.21851@oneb.almanac.bc.ca>, kmcvay@oneb.almanac.bc.ca (Ken Mcvay) writes:  |>As Dawidowicz points out, in "The Holocaust and the Historians," (Harvard  |>University Press, 34-38): |> |>"...the nadir in Hitlerology is reached by David Irving's "Hitler's |>War."<34> An amateur historian, whose reputation as a German apologist and |>as a writer without regard for accuracy or truth won him a measure of |>notoriety, <35> Irving produced a 926-page work intended to show that Hitler |>was kind to his animals and to his secretaries, that he was "probably the |>weakest _leader_ Germany has known in this century," and that he did not |>murder the Jews or even wish to do so, but that the murder was committed |>behind his back, without his knowledge or consent."   Let us assume for the sake of argument that this was indeed the case? Does this mean that Hilter would have been in any way less guilty of mass murder because he aquiesced rather than participated as an active and ardent supporter?  One of the important things to realise about the NAZIs is that the system was far more evil than any single member. Once created the NAZI party itself was a murder machine that would inevitably commit genocide, there was noone within it strong enough to prevent it. Remember that Hitler did not originaly lead the NAZI party nor was he particularly powerful within it until his oratory allowed the party to come to power. Had Hitler reneged upon the emotiaonal expectations which he had created within the ranks of  his supporters he would have been replaced as he had himself replaced the old guard who he beleived were unable to grasp the intellectual implications of their rhetoric.   This is why all parties that espouse NAZI style race supremacy ideologies must be considered as dangerous and as evil as the NAZIs. The idea that one "race" of people is inherently superior to another and that the greatest goal of humanity is to achieve racial perfection has only one logical outcome, the gas chambers of Auschwitz.  The NAZI party is not simply the tale of a supremely evil single man who lead an entire country astray, beyond the evil of individuals there was the evil of the system itself which was self generating and self perpetuating. Hitler was an extreemly evil person who built his party arround an ego cult centered on the demonstration of his own power, this does not however mean that he was as entirely free from political constraints as he and his propagandists worked so hard to assert. The myth that racism can produce a strong government that can cure a nations ills must be  emphatically rejected. In the same way we must accept a distinction between a govenrment that demonstrates its strength and one that is able to  govern decisively in the manner it beleives is best. I would accept only the latter as a "strong" government since most displays of strength are made necessary by an essential weakness.  It is important to understand that the NAZIs were not stupid nor were they amoral in the sense that they lacked moral scruples. They acted in the same manner as the Spanish Inquisition - murder and torture in the cause of morality. The fault of the NAZIs lies in their axioms, not in their logic nor in their implementation of those axioms. Thus all such parties such as the National Front or David Dukes Klu Klux Klan front who assert the truth of those axioms must be considered for what they are, advocates of a system that would commit genocide.   The conclusion that Hitler was not only responsible but imensely evil is inescapable from the historical record. It is important though to not let the conclusion be reached that the NAZIs espoused a set of ideas that were basically correct but had an unfortunate proponent. The evils of the concept of race supremacy are primary. Although this most emphaticaly does not excuse individual culpability this is nevertheless secondary.  No matter what the promises made by a racist, supremacist party upon  election those promises will be broken as soon as circumstances permit. If this requires the replacement of the leaders that originally made the pledges, that will occur. Hatred is a supreme justifier. It also creates a dynamic of its own when those in government allow it reign. For many in government politics is a method of providing a justification for their own existence through a demonstration of their importance. A  rhetoric of hatred inevitably develops the question of action since the continued existence of an object of hatred is inevitably a reminder of the essential impotence of the politician. Thus we have the US raid on Tripoli which has little purpose beyond a demonstration of power. It is important to realise that there is no quantum jump between the politics of the right and those of the extreeme right but a progression from the reinforcement of popular predjudice to action being taken on the basis of that predjudice. In the same way the extreeme left trace their route to despotism through their assertion of the subjugation of the individual to ideology.  It is important though that in attempting to understand the dynamics of political systems that this is not used to excuse the participants. The leaders of a nation take on a supreme moral burden but not only do so voluntarily are required to stive to do so. Thus to take on such a  task without a fundamental examination of the logical progression of ones set of axioms to its conclusion in itself is a moral crime. Furthermore in taking on such a duty one is obliged to put the interest of the whole before personal concerns, even of personal security.  Although it was inevitable that a party such as the NAZIs, based upon hatred and an idolisation of the symbols of power should have saught to commit genocide it was not inevitable that they should succeeded. Each member of the system had an ability to create a change within it that had a possibility of changing the dynamic. Realising that the individual cannot hope to  control a system does not mean accepting that the individual cannot  affect the system.