Just finished Aimé Césaire's Discourse on Colonialism (1950) and I've come across an interesting idea that Hannah Arendt had also mentioned in The Origins of Totalitarianism (1951).

The essential idea is that the racist, authoritarian regimes of the early 20th century in Europe (particularly Nazism) should be understood as an organic extension of the authoritarian nature of colonial rule (which in the 19th century was supported by racist ideology) outside of Europe.

Arendt made the distinction that it was already applied within Europe, through the treatment of Eastern Europe by Central European powers and the Russian Empire, but the essential idea is the same.

This is a really interesting idea but neither book is a definitive, systematic treatment of the subject.

Césaire is writing a political essay as an activist and writer (hugely important among Caribbean Surrealists) and Arendt is a political and moral philosopher (again, hugely important in her field).

I'm curious if anyone else has come across this idea (an explicit connection between right-wing racist dictatorships in Europe and colonialism, justified through racism, outside of Europe) elsewhere. Was it just a really common idea/connection in the postwar years? Is there a more detailed and well researched explanation of this connection?

I got halfway through Edward Said's Culture and Imperialism (which I wasn't particularly a fan of) and don't recall this connection being mentioned (and if it was it certainly wasn't, to my recollection, emphasized).

During my studies, we learned about David Irving's Holocaust-denial(although he denies his own denial).

My question is what do you other professional historians and "amateur" historians(to use the correct term, not to talk you down) think of his and other historians denial of something as certain as the Holocaust. I know that in history, you can't say anything is a fact other than that we truly know nothing, but some events are more "true" than others.

Is he ruining it for everyone by denying it, or are we historians such a trusted group that a few individuals can't deligitimize us?

And to further this, what do you think of the internet as conveyer of history? Communities as this are rare, and misinformation is easily spread. Speaking for myself, I'm afraid of the spread of misinformation, but being active in spreading well researched information should be able to keep it down.