UiB-historiker Sander-Faes Kritiseres for Holocaust-Utsagn I Der Standard

Stephan Sander-Faes, a historian at the University of Bergen, sparked controversy in Austria on November 5 when the newspaper Der Standard published excerpts from articles and comments he published under a pseudonym on independent platforms.

Der Standard highlighted statements regarding Nazi concentration camps and what Sander-Faes described in a February 26 article as an “abundance of lies” concerning the Second World War. The professor argued that terror propaganda against Germany, which Moscow and Washington allegedly had a shared interest in promoting after the war, has played out its role due to neoconservative plans to destroy Russia, Khrono reported.

In his posts on a Substack blog, Sander-Faes criticized historical research and what he perceived as falsehoods regarding Nazi Germany and the Holocaust. Khrono reported that in a comment exchange, he argued that dedicated annihilation or death camps did not exist, using quotation marks around the term so-called extermination camps.

Another blog user said that the figure of six million murdered Jews should be adjusted downward, pointing to an alleged taboo. To this, the Bergen professor replied, “Excactly!” Der Standard verified that Sander-Faes operated the pseudonymous account, a fact the professor confirmed to the newspaper.

In a written comment to Khrono, Sander-Faes accused Der Standard of picking his arguments apart and taking them out of context. He said that the coverage had little to no overlap with the core of his arguments.

“I strongly reject the insinuations that can be read both in the leading questions from Der Standard and your follow-up questions — that I should have any form of constructed affinity for the reprehensible, national socialist ideology,” Sander-Faes told Khrono.

As rector, I want to emphasize that freedom of expression applies to all employees and students at the University of Bergen, Hagen wrote in a comment to Khrono. She added that commenting specifically could be perceived as institutional pressure on individual rights, noting that academic and ethical evaluations belong within the academic environment.