My thought is that Revisionists should move to forum where we could get closer to a fair hearing.

Each year the United Nations General Assembly hears and passes the United States resolution on Holocaust Rememberance. This January US Ambassador Wolff proposed an extreme resolution which "condemns without any reservation any denial of the Holocaust." It also "urges all member states unreservedly to reject any denial of the Holocaust as a historical event, either in full or in part, or any activities to this end."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070126/wl_mideast_afp/israeluniranholocaust_070126212236

Wolff also said, "Some will cloak their hatred and hidden agenda by invoking the right to free speech and academic freedom."
http://www.usunnewyork.usmission.gov/07_011.htm

I wrote to several missions and got back two replies and one response from the US mission.

Clearly, many countries found the US position extreme but went along with it for lack of an alternative. Many countries abstained.

A counter Resolution which "remembered the Holocaust" but stated the fundamental lesson of the Holocaust is that governments should respect human rights, free speech, and historical discussion would have gathered much support and created a fair amount of debate.

The United States is working toward making Revisionism an "International Crime". For the most part, there is no organized opposition except by Iran.

Below is my letter to the US mission and their response.

Ambassador Alejandro Wolff
c/o Press and Public Affairs Section
United States Mission to the United Nations
140 East 45th Street
New York, N.Y. 10017
Faxed to: 212-415-4053; emailed to usunpublicaffairs@state.gov on January 23, 2007

Esteemed Ambassador:

I noticed that the United States introduced a U.N. resolution on Tuesday condemning denials of the Holocaust. The article reads in part,

"Iran is not mentioned by name although the resolution is clearly aimed at a Tehran conference convened in December by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Most speakers expressed doubt about the Nazis' mass extermination of Jews".
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070124/wl_nm/un_holocaust_usa_iran_dc_5

I suggest that the proposed resolution is bad policy for several reasons.

First and foremost, the United States should always stand for principles of free speech, free thought, and unbridled discussion. The proposed Resolution does the opposite, condemning the expression of different historical views.

Secondly, the advocacy of a particular view of history is not the realm of politicians. While the present Persian government may have made history a political issue, it is as unseemly for the United Nations to demand a correct reading of history as it would be for the august body to demand a particular view of astronomy.

Thirdly, the field of Holocaust studies continues to develop. An example was announced on December 23, 2005 by the Auschwitz State Museum under the title Latest News "Changes in History Books?"
http://www.auschwitz-muzeum.oswiecim.pl/new/index.php?tryb=news_big&language=EN&id=879

I suggest that the esteemed members of the United Nations General Assembly may not know of the significant changes occurring in the history books today. Attempting to decree the final writing of history at this time may be a bit too soon. Perhaps in another 60 years!

Thank you for your consideration of these matters.

      Sincerely yours,

- US response -

Dear Mr. Allen:

In response to your message to Ambassador Wolff, the UN General Assembly Resolution that was adopted today by consensus, with 104 countries as co-sponsors has nothing to do with countering free speech or intellectual thought. It is about avoiding future disasters. Looking back to November 1, 2005, the UN General Assembly adopted by consensus a resolution which rejected the denial of the Holocaust as an historical event and established the remembrance of the Holocaust as critical to preventing further acts of genocide. This resolution today follows through on that resolution and focuses on human rights and the vital stake in a world free of genocide. January 27 has been designated by the United Nations as an annual International Day of Commemoration in memory of the victims of the Holocaust. You may wish to read Ambassador Wolff's statement on our web site: www.usunnewyork.usmission.gov

- My response -

Thank you for your response and the cite to Ambassador Wolff's statement. First allow me to state that my concern with this issue comes in part from the fact that I am an attorney and was a history major whose thesis was on German history.

You write that, "has nothing to do with countering free speech or intellectual thought." Of course not. The worst tyrant supports "free speech and intellectual thought" publicly and then goes and finds whatever exceptions are needed to support the suppression of those views the tyrant wishes to suppress. Blasphemy, treason, avoiding future disasters are all standard excuses for the denial of free speech.

In this case, the United State' Resolution was as extreme a move to stifle discussion as possible. The Resolution "condemns without any reservation any denial of the Holocaust." It also "urges all member states unreservedly to reject any denial of the Holocaust as a historical event, either in full or in part, or any activities to this end."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070126/wl_mideast_afp/israeluniranholocaust_070126212236

I am left wondering what is denial "in part" or what "any activities to this end" are. Is Raul Hilberg to be condemned for his lower numbers of victims? Is the reading suspect books "activities to this end?"

Perhaps I parse the terms of the Resolution too finely but Ambassador Wolff makes his intent clear when he moves from condemning "denial", Partial "denial" and activities which might lead to "denial " to his comments regarding those people (like me) who raise questions of politicians decreeing what is correct to believe in history.

The Ambassador writes, "Some will cloak their hatred and hidden agenda by invoking the right to free speech and academic freedom."
http://www.usunnewyork.usmission.gov/07_011.htm

The honorable Ambassador seems to feel that even speaking in favor of speaking openly is to be condemned.

The United States should always stand for principles of free speech, free thought, and unbridled discussion. This is particularly true in United Nations General Assembly, which under Articles 10 and 11 of the United Nations Charter is to be Forum for discussion.

You imply that this extremist Resolution is necessary for remembrance of the Holocaust. I disagree. Remembrance of the Holocaust should not involve in anyway suppression of basic human rights - and if it does, I suggest that you have failed to learn the lesson of the Holocaust.