Thesis (M.A.) - Simon Fraser University, 2005. / Theses (School of Criminology) / Simon Fraser University. Also issued in digital format and available on the World Wide Web.

This study examines the two major conspiracy theories regarding Nazi assets being taken out of Germany and moved to neutral countries, specifically Argentina: Aktion Adlerflug and Aktion Feuerland. These two conspiracy theories believe that as defeat became inevitable, the Nazi leadership moved to ensure it had the plans and resources in place to safely evacuate. The conspiracy theories rely on networks established between the Nazi leadership, led by Hitler’s secretary Martin Bormann, German industrialists and expatriates, and German foreign and intelligence service agents operating in Argentina. They all colluded in the last two years of the war to construct, and provide for, a Nazi refuge in Patagonia where Hitler and other top Nazis would escape after the war. This study will critically examine the literature by the conspiracy theorists who propose these claims, and seek to determine the validity of their claims. Through the lens of these two conspiracy theories, this project will address questions of historical objectivity and historical method. Additionally, it will seek to understand the motivations of those that propose the conspiracy theories, and why the theories continue to be so prevalent.

Thesis (PhD) -- University of Western Sydney, 2002. / "A thesis presented to the University of Western Sydney in the fulfillment of the requirement for the degree of Master of Arts (Honours), May 2002." Bibliography: p. 300-333.

Thesis (M. A.)--University of Western Sydney. / "May 2002." Title taken from title screen (viewed October 8, 2007). Includes bibliographical references and appendix.

Denial of the Holocaust and other crimes from the perspective of the international protection of human rights (freedom of expression) This thesis discusses the conflict between the freedom of expression and other rights and values guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights, which are affected by denial of the Holocaust and other crimes. Freedom of expression is a relative fundamental right that can be limited in order to protect other protected rights and values. In cases of denial of the Holocaust and other crimes, freedom of expression can be limited in the interests of the protection of the dignity of victims and prevention of disorder or crime. The aim of this thesis is to provide a comprehensive view on the issue of denial of the Holocaust and other crimes in the light of freedom of expression in the European Court of Human Rights case law. The first part provides definition of the relationship between Holocaust denial and freedom of expression from the perspective of international law, the characteristics of freedom of expression and its limits, and the role and proceeding of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of conflict between freedom of expression and other rights and values. The second part is dedicated to the European Court of Human Rights case law concerning the...

Thesis (D.A.)--Illinois State University, 2000. / Title from title page screen, viewed May 2, 2006. Dissertation Committee: Lawrence McBride (chair), Donald E. Davis, Niles Holt, Alvin Goldfarb. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 291-296) and abstract. Also available in print.

After World War II some people from all over Europe started to say that the destruction of the European Jews never happened. This article is written to compare the argument the Holocaust deniers are using against science document. The materials that have been used for this comparison are the books “Dog verkligen 6 miljoner? Sanning till sist” and ”En tom säck kan inte stå” which are the Holocaust deniers material. From the other side I have been using the Swedish states internet side Forum för levande historia, the site of Världens historia and the documentary of Auschwitz from BBC. The arguments will be studied from post fact theory specters, were I will compare the facts from the two sides and put them together. I will do that by look how the arguments from the two sides are built. I have also made questions that I have been asking by email the two sides. The Holocaust denier’s sides are the Swedish party called Nordiska Motståndsrörelsen (Nordic resistance movement) and the other side is Forum för levande historia (Forum of living history). The result that this study will show are when you put all the arguments from the Holocaust deniers together, their argument will not be as strong as when they are by them self.

Die vorliegende Arbeit analysiert den Umgang mit dem Tatbestand der Holocaust-Leugnung durch die Europäische Union (EU) und den Europäischen Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (EGMR). Derzeit befinden sich diese in einer heiklen Situation: Sie müssen das Gedenken an ein für die europäische Identität zentrales historisches Ereignis – den Holocaust – pflegen und schützen und zugleich die Achtung der Grundrechte, insbesondere der Meinungsfreiheit, gewährleisten. Diese besondere Situation erfordert eine gründliche Untersuchung des europäischen Umgangs mit dem Tatbestand der Holocaust-Leugnung. Der erste Teil der Dissertation steckt den Anwendungsbereich der europarechtlichen Verpflichtungen zur Kriminalisierung der Holocaust-Leugnung ab. Bewertet wird insbesondere die Bedeutung des Rahmenbeschlusses 2008/913/JHA über Rassismus und Fremdenfeindlichkeit für die EU-Mitgliedstaaten. Dabei werden einige Beispiele der Umsetzung in staatliches Recht dargestellt. Der zweite Teil der Arbeit befasst sich mit der Rechtsprechung des EGMR und untersucht das Verhältnis zwischen dem Tatbestand der Holocaust-Leugnung und der Meinungsfreiheit mit dem Ziel, die Grundsätze, nach denen Staaten verpflichtet sind, entsprechende Äußerungen zu kriminalisieren, herzuleiten. Die übergreifenden Ziele der Untersuchung sind: a) den Charakter des Zusammenspiels zwischen EU und EGMR herauszuarbeiten; b) zu ermitteln, ob die jeweiligen Positionen gegensätzlich oder komplementär sind; c) die Rechtsnatur und den Inhalt der für die Mitgliedstaaten begründeten Verpflichtungen zu bestimmen; d) herauszuarbeiten, ob eine europaweite Kriminalisierung verpflichtend ist oder lediglich gefördert werden soll; und e) ob beziehungsweise unter welchen Bedingungen ein mit Kriminalstrafe sanktioniertes Verbot der Holocaust-Leugnung erstrebenswert wäre. / The present study aims to analyse the legal treatment of the crime of denialism by the two main actors in European justice, namely, the European Union (‘EU’) and the European Court of Human Rights (‘ECtHR’). Presently, these two systems find themselves in a delicate position: they must cherish and protect the memory of an historical event – the Holocaust – which is central to Europe’s own identity, while simultaneously promoting respect for fundamental rights such as the freedom of speech. This unique balance raises a need for a thorough investigation into Europe’s approach to the crime of denialism. The dissertation’s first section seeks to measure the scope of EU-imposed obligations to make denialism a crime. Notably, the impact on EU Member States of the Framework Decision 2008/913/JHA on racism and xenophobia is assessed, with illustrations of a few archetypal examples of domestic implementing legislation. The second part of the dissertation turns to the jurisprudence of the ECtHR to examine the relationship between Holocaust denial as a crime and the right to freedom of expression, with a view to deducing the principles under which States must comply in the criminalization of this kind of utterance. The work’s overall goals are to assess: a) the nature of interactions between the EU and ECtHR; b) whether their positions on denialism are better portrayed in terms of contrast or mutual support; c) the legal nature and content of the obligations originating for the Member States; d) whether a Europe-wide criminal prohibition on denialism is dictated or simply encouraged; and e) whether such a prohibition would be desirable, and if so, under what conditions.

No description available.