The following commentary on this denier site was created by students, who raise a series of questions about the use of evidence and the claims of proof. The questions are just a starting point in critically assessing the site. Take a look:

Greg Raven presents the core of his revisionist ideas and claims in his "Frequently Asked Questions". In question 3 , Raven implies that revisionists should not be labeled as "Holocaust deniers." However, he states that revisionists do not believe that the evidence supports the three criteria he highlights in question 2 as the main aspects of the Holocaust, according to its mainstream definition. Can you separate those three criteria from the idea of the "Holocaust" and deny them without denying that the "Holocaust" occurred? Raven seems to propose that revisionists redefine the Holocaust, rather than denying it. Yet, in order to challenge or disprove the accepted history and substitute his new definition, Raven would need to demonstrate both that the evidence does not support the established version and that it does support his version. As you continue to read through his web site, consider whether or not Raven does provide the evidence to support his conclusions that "the gas chamber story is definitely false and the Nazi program to kill the Jews is a myth."

In questions 4 and 5, is Raven presenting opinions or facts supported by evidence? In question 5, Raven mixes statements about historical events with value judgements about how people behave and what are acceptable moral and legal practices. Can or should he equate these two very different kinds of judgement? Does he try to justify making conclusions about the historical facts and falsehoods of the Holocaust based on value judgements or judgements of individuals? Is this a legitimate way to demonstrate the historical legitimacy of his version of the Holocaust?

Why doesn't Raven substantiate his conclusion that the War Crimes Trials at Nuremberg were illegitimate (his responses to questions 6 & 7) by providing examples of the documents and other testimony he claims were accepted unjustifiably as evidence incriminating the Nazis?

In questions 15 and 62 , Raven suggests that the statements people make about what they have seen, heard about, or experienced cannot be accepted as valid forms of evidence. He then goes on to discredit many aspects of the history-as-recorded about the Holocaust because they are only supported by testimony or eyewitness accounts. On what grounds does Raven discredit these written and oral testimony and eyewitness statements? Do you feel that written and oral testimony can be sources of reliable information about historical events? Why does Raven not provide specific examples of the "factual errors and absurdities" that he claims invalidate all eyewitness testimony regarding the Holocaust? Can Raven successfully argue against the accepted history of the Holocaust WITHOUT discrediting all of these forms of evidence? Or does it seem as though he's about to trip over one BIG elephant stuffed under the rug?

Historians of the Holocaust have responded to Raven's claims abut the "truth" of the Holocaust and challenges to be provided with evidence; in particular by answering his request for one conclusive document, proving that the Nazis constructed gas chambers as part of their plan to annihilate the Jewish race. Take a look at some of the judgements Raven makes about these documents and the conclusions he draws about the Holocaust based on these judgements in his essay, "Rebutting the anti-revisionist's 'best evidence' for the existence of Nazi 'gas chambers," on his web page.

How does Raven respond to information that contradicts his arguments?
Does he seriously refute it?
Dismiss it out-of-hand?
Raven has analyzed each of the 10 documents individually and determined that every one is flawed in some way, or fails to establish the proof of a Nazi plot to exterminate the Jewish people that he has asked for. He stresses in particular that most of the documents are testimonies or eyewitness accounts that cannot be credited as factual in the first place. Yet in his conclusion, he admits that, "I believe that the reason these ten 'documents' were presented together is that when viewed together they seem damning [of the Nazis]." He justifies his rejection of this BODY of proof on the grounds that no individual piece, on its own, demonstrates that the Holocaust occurred as commonly accepted. Is this yet another elephant?

Moreover, if Raven believes this, how does he propose to substantiate his own overall interpretation of what happened, his rejection of the idea of a Nazi plot, based on his alternate reading of recorded, documented, photographed historical events? Raven basically provides us with "probable scenarios" for what actually occurred in eastern Europe, under the Nazi regime during World War II and claims that these scenarios are "more likely" to describe the truth of what happened, because no historian of the Holocaust can produce one absolute source that defines the truth of history by their description. But does he have any one, definitive document that states that the Nazis did NOT intend to wipe out the Jewish people; nor to execute millions of other people based on their particular characteristics? Do Raven's arguments meet his own standards for demonstrating historical accuracy and truth?

Finally, where does Raven's information come from? Look at Raven's Bibliographies for his "Frequently Asked Questions".
Whom does he cite as sources/ resources?
Why is it important to look at whom and what are the sources of information?
Raven does not provide us with any direct access to his sources. How can we know that we can trust that Raven's sources have accurate, unbiased information if we cannot easily find them? Finally, many of his sources books, articles, analyses, written by other members of the same revisionist organization to which he belongs, the Institute of Historical Review. How does the fact that so many of his sources as self-referential in this way affect the legitimacy of his attempt to "objectively" describe and redefine the Holocaust? How do we know that we can credit the reliability of his colleagues ("Bob . says. ."), simply because he tells us we can?