Free Speech or Historical Revisionism? Analyzing Alessandro Pepe's explanation and the historical implications.

In recent years, discussions around free speech and historical memory have become increasingly polarizing. I noted in an article recently that there have been changes in how history is presented in the USA. A speech given by Alessandro Pepe, who goes by the name Alexx Hermánn now, associated with the 2016 film My Honor Was Loyalty, brings these issues to the forefront. Previously I wrote about Alessandro Pepe / Alexx Hermánn and how his work romanticize the myth of the Waffen-SS here and how he distorted the Allied bombings in Germany to evoke sympathy for the German soldiers here. The speech is taken from the beginning of the short movie You've Shed Blood, which details a battle between Italian partisans and the German Wehrmacht.

The full speech:

"It's not true that we live in a society where we have freedom of speech. We can't say what we think. We live in a society full of hypocrisy where usually people changes mind according to what is trendy to say. And those people that fight for free speech, free expression and free thinking those who fight for Democracy actually don't really do it. They actually attack you if you are not playing following their rules. If you don't follow those standards of the society we live and that they created. And this also happens if you try to stay neutral. When I realized my film My Honor Was Loyalty for those who watched the film, it's totally clear that the movie tries to stay neutral, no kind of evil is glorified and War Crimes from National Socialism are not denied. But when I also try to show that bad things truly happened from those who we glorify as heroes at that point, I am censored."

This blog post dissects his remarks to understand the rhetoric and identify the problems and their impacts on society in his framing of historical events. Before we do so, it's important to distinguish between censorship, critique and backlash. Censorship is the official suppression of speech by governments or institutions. This can be banning a film or burning a book. Censorship is an official sanction. Critique is when people comment on ideas, which can be done by challenging them. Backlash is a reaction from groups, such as societies. This can be done by calling for boycotts. It means that people disapprove and it's not the same as censorship. Backlash is an informal sanction. It doesn't carry any legal weight, but it doesn't mean that it cannot have consequences.

The Speech: A Breakdown

Pepe's speech criticizes societal norms around freedom of expression, claiming that free speech is suppressed. He asserts that expressing opinions that diverge from "society's standards" leads to censorship. He defends his film as attempting to "stay neutral" in portraying both sides of World War II. He highlights "bad things" committed by both the Nazis and the Allies. While these themes might seem innocuous at first glance, a closer inspection reveals troubling undertones.

Pepe's speech revolves around his opinion that his free speech is under attack, but he interprets societal backlash as censorship. His claim, "I am censored," reflects this confusion. To fully assess his argument, we must examine whether his experiences truly reflect formal suppression or simply societal pushback against his controversial ideas.

Pepe does correctly describe an instance of censorship when he notes that the short film was removed from YouTube, when the following text is shown: "The short film was then censored and taken down from YouTube." However, the film's reupload and current availability complicate this narrative. If he successfully overcame the censorship, it demonstrates that the suppression was temporary and not infinite. This distinction matters because confusing temporary setbacks with lasting censorship undermines the weight of genuine free speech issues. Removing the film from YouTube could be seen as censorship if it violated free speech principles. However, since it's a commercial video platform, they can moderate against content that violates their community guidelines. While at times it can appear to be done inconsistently, it complicates his claim of deliberate suppression.

Victimhood and the Free Speech Argument

Pepe frames himself as a victim of societal censorship, stating, "I am censored if I don't follow those standards." This taps into a broader narrative often used by controversial figures. Rather than address the issue, they portray critique of them as an attack on free speech. In reality, facing pushback for problematic claims is not censorship; it is the exercise of others' free speech to challenge misinformation. Additionally, Pepe's language also reflects a narrative often used by revisionist arguments. By claiming himself as a martyr for truth-telling, he diverts attention from the content of his claims and shifts the focus to a perceived injustice against him.

Equivalence of Atrocities: A Dangerous Rhetoric

Pepe's assertion that "bad things truly happened" on both sides undermines the historical specificity of Nazi crimes. While no side in war is without fault, equating isolated Allied war crimes with the genocidal policies of Nazi Germany distorts historical reality. The Nuremberg Trials and decades of scholarship underscore the unique and systematic nature of Nazi atrocities, which cannot be relativized through a selective focus on Allied misconduct.

The Myth of "Neutrality"

Pepe's defense of neutrality in My Honor Was Loyalty also demands closer inspection. The film, told from the perspective of a fictional Waffen-SS soldier, has been criticized for humanizing participants in a regime responsible for orchestrating the Holocaust and other crimes against humanity. In the film prisoners of war are killed to prevent them from posing a threat in the future or in emotional outbursts. The main character also attempts to protect a Jewish woman against prosecution by the nazis. In addition, the main character claims that he didn't know that Jewish people were killed. He thought they were put to work for the Germans.

The Context Matters

While exploring a person's individual humanity is valid in art, the context matters greatly. As I wrote earlier about non-political history, in the case of examining a Waffen-SS soldier and leaving out the context, it can minimize the systemic and industrialized nature of Nazi crimes. It can also provide fuel for relativizing the Holocaust by equating it with the wartime actions of the Allies, which were not comparable in scale or intent. By framing his work as censored for revealing uncomfortable truths about Allied actions, the choices made in the creating of this movie are reinforcing false equivalencies. This can be seen when he says that the "movie tries to stay neutral, no kind of evil is glorified and War Crimes from National Socialism are not denied. But when I also try to show that bad things truly happened from those who we glorify as heroes at that point, I am censored." The narrative choices in his film align with patterns commonly seen in historical revisionism. Attempting to save the life of a Jewish woman is directly contrary to the representative behavior of the systemic brutality Waffen-SS unit he portrays in his film. Thus his works reinforce false equivalencies and his work aligns with patterns commonly seen in historical revisionism, which can contribute to obscuring the true Holocaust history with historical distortions.

The Facts Speak Only When The Historian Calls On Them

The simple fact is that history is never neutral. As the famous historian E. H. Carr wrote in his book What is History?: "The facts speak only when the historian calls on them: it is he who decides to which facts to give the floor, and in what order or context."¹ This act of selection inherently reflects the historian's perspective, biases, and context. A film is not a historical documentary or even a non-fiction book. It's a fictional medium, where the director shapes the final product. Thus neutrality can never be achieved. History is about choices. What's included, and what's excluded? In the case of My Honor was Loyalty, Pepe decided to include certain events or to create the movie from a certain point of view. In this case, the choice for the main character is a Waffen-SS soldier, not a Wehrmacht soldier. This inherently skews the narrative. While some war crimes are shown, the main character also attempts to save a Jewish woman. This is not an act of neutrality, but an active choice to twist the narrative in a certain direction. As has been documented repeatedly, the Waffen-SS was complicit in the murder of Jewish people, not saving them. While I understand that it's a low-budget movie, it doesn't absolve the director and the history advisor Leone Frisa of understanding and treating with care the historical and moral weight of the topic.

Leone Frisa: Responsibility as History Consultant and Actor

Leone Frisa, credited as the film's history consultant and lead actor, held a dual role that gave him significant influence over the movie's portrayal of historical events. Addressing sensitive topics like the Holocaust and the Waffen-SS demands both factual accuracy and careful contextualization to avoid misleading audiences or minimizing systemic atrocities.

Despite his responsibilities, the film includes narrative choices that conflict with established historical records. For instance, the portrayal of a Waffen-SS soldier saving a Jewish woman contradicts the significant amount of documentation of the unit. As history consultant, Frisa was in a position to guide the film away from such inaccuracies, ensuring it did not risk reinforcing false equivalencies between Nazi atrocities and Allied actions, which is a narrative pattern often associated with historical revisionism.

By failing to address these inconsistencies, Frisa missed an opportunity to uphold the historical context essential for an accurate depiction of the Waffen-SS. While the intent may have been to humanize individual characters, these choices risk contributing to broader misunderstandings of the Holocaust and its systemic nature. As both the history consultant and lead actor, Frisa's dual role further blurs the line between artistic freedom and factual integrity. While artistic license is central to filmmaking, when dealing with sensitive topics like this must be balanced with historical accuracy, especially on subjects of such profound moral and historical importance. In this instance, Frisa's contributions fell short, resulting in a narrative that risks distorting historical truths and diminishing the systemic horrors of Nazi crimes.

Do You Need To Stay Neutral While Examining The Nazis?

When making a film about a participant in a genocidal regime, do you really need "to stay neutral"? Attempting neutrality risks obscuring the simple foundational truth that an inherent part of nazi-ideology was the deportation, starvation or annihilation of large groups of people. The Nazi regime carried out several crimes against humanity and it systematically dehumanized and attempted to annihilate large groups of people. With so many uncovered, unique, and meaningful stories in history, is it truly necessary to humanize members of the Waffen-SS—individuals complicit in war crimes and crimes against humanity? Wouldn't a movie about the uprising at the extermination camps at Treblinka or Sobibor be much more interesting? How despite being stuck in terrible situations, the inmates rose up, overcame the guards and some escaped captivity? Then again, a low-budget film might not have the resources to do this.

The Broader Implications of Nazi Revisionism

Pepe's speech and his film illustrate the challenges of confronting historical narratives responsibly. Works like My Honor Was Loyalty may not explicitly deny Nazi crimes, but by focusing on the individual "human" stories of those within the Nazi regime, they can normalize or trivialize participation in an oppressive system. This is not a neutral act; it subtly reshapes public memory of the Holocaust and World War II.

What It Means for Society

Pepe's rhetoric taps into a broader struggle in Western society about free speech, censorship, and the limits of what's acceptable to say. While free speech is vital, confusing critique with censorship creates a fake contradiction. It weaponizes free speech. Inserting revisionist ideas into public discourse under the guise of free speech undermines legitimate discussions about history. Society must distinguish between protecting expression and challenging dangerous misinformation. It hurts the consensus of what's true. This approach fosters mistrust in scholarly consensus and institutions by framing historical critique as societal hypocrisy. This can weaken public faith in democratic systems that rely on shared truths.

This can be seen directly in the case of one reviewer, who watched the movie and noted: "As I watched 'My Honor Was Loyalty,' the movie changed my view on war, morality, life and love." In his conclusion, he wrote: "What I learned from this movie is that history is written by the victors. Although this movie is not Pro SS, it does tell the story of a simple SS soldier, and how he battles with his conscience as the war approaches an end. I highly recommend watching this movie, which is available on Amazon, and to develop your own opinion."² In other words, after watching the movie, Zac Russ has a different view of World War II, the SS and is seemingly oblivious to how the movie attempts to reshape the perception of the Waffen-SS. This is not a good development, since he repeats the oft-used quote "history is written by the victors", which can be used to delegitimize the current scholarly consensus. Yet at the same time is oblivious to the moral and historical errors of the movie, while encouraging others to watch it. It doesn't spell hopeful for the future.

The movie also actively contributes to discouraging constructive dialogue. One reviewer wrote: "Ignore the bad reviews. The vast majority of them are based solely on the fact that German soldiers are portrayed as humane." It dismisses all negative comments outright, solely on their intent and not on their evidence. It's an argumentum ad hominem. No matter what someone might write, all arguments and reasons to the contrary can be rejected with the claim that the person doesn't wish to see German soldiers portrayed as humane. In such an environment, no constructive dialogue is possible and it only serves to divide people.

What It Means for History

Pepe's defense of neutrality in representing historical events, particularly those related to Nazism, touches upon ongoing debates about historical revisionism and the risks of false equivalence. While neutrality might seem like an objective or balanced stance, it is, in fact, unattainable when addressing ideologies or events as unequivocally oppressive as National Socialism. By attempting to present an equal weight to both Nazi crimes and Allied misconduct, one falls into the fallacy of false equivalence—a logical error that assumes two opposing sides are morally or ethically equivalent when, in fact, they are not.

The Nazi regime's crimes, particularly the Holocaust, were not mere missteps or mistakes. It was a systematic, state-sponsored act of genocide. It had a deliberate, ideological agenda. The goal was to exterminate groups and populations. The notion of "neutrality" in this context, however, blurs the distinction between aggressor and victim, perpetrator and survivor. By equating Nazi atrocities with Allied actions, it diminishes the historical specificity of the Holocaust. The ideological and racial motivations driving the genocide perpetrated by the Nazis are downplayed, reducing it to just another chapter in the long history of wartime violence, thus failing to recognize the singular nature of the Nazi regime's intent and scope.

The false equivalence inherent in this "both-sides" mentality has broader implications for how people understand the consequences of Nazi actions. By equating the two sides the complexity of history is obscured. The result is a revisionist narrative that obscures the real nature of the Nazis' crimes against humanity, presenting them as part of a more general or even justifiable conflict. This diminishes the historical understanding of the Holocaust not as a tragic side effect of war, but as a premeditated and ideologically motivated atrocity.

Shifting Historical Responsibility

In making this false equivalence, historical responsibility is not just blurred; it is shifted. By positioning the Holocaust on the same level as other wartime events, such as the bombing of Dresden, the perpetrators of systemic genocide, the Nazis, are no longer solely held accountable. Instead, there is a tendency to spread the blame across all involved parties. This means that the focus moves away from collective guilt toward individual struggles or errors. It encourages a moral relativism that fails to acknowledge the uniquely evil nature of Nazi ideology and their crimes against humanity.

Opens the Door for Historical Distortion

Moreover, this form of revisionism and false equivalence has lasting consequences for the preservation of historical truths. It facilitates Holocaust denialism, historical distortion, and minimization of their crimes against humanity. By presenting the Nazi regime's actions as just another form of wartime violence, it becomes easier for those seeking to rewrite history to argue that atrocities like the Holocaust were either exaggerated or part of a larger, less significant narrative. This is part of a larger whole, where people seek to undermine established truths about the Holocaust.

In the long run, treating Nazi crimes as if they're no worse than other wartime actions harms our understanding of history. It makes it harder to teach the truth, remember the past properly, and take responsibility for keeping historical facts alive. Being "neutral" when talking about the Nazi crimes against humanity isn't a fair or balanced approach—it distorts the facts and weakens efforts to prevent Holocaust denial and protect historical accuracy.

What It Means for the Future

All of these effects have implications for the future. If such narratives gain traction, they can in time infiltrate academic research or popular history, shaping how future generations understand history. This risks creating a populace less informed about the dangers of fascism and genocide. It weakens democratic resilience because democracy relies on informed citizens. Allowing relativism to take root undermines the ability to learn from history and recognize warning signs of authoritarianism and hate. It weakens cultural memory and accountability. With time we grow more distant from World War II and that makes it all the more important to preserve its lessons. Narratives like Pepe's threaten this preservation, enabling subtle shifts toward glorifying or excusing ideologies that have caused immense harm.

The Path Forward

Not all is doom and gloom. While it's important to confront historical revisionism, there are also ways to prevent this in the future. We can advocate historical literacy. We can encourage critical thinking and engagement with well-researched, diverse sources. We can continue to call out attempts to obscure historical facts while protecting genuine free expression in the public discourse. We can foster open dialogue, which allows space for debate but draws firm lines against rhetoric that seeks to relativize or excuse systemic atrocities. As a society, we must remain vigilant against rhetoric that distorts history or undermines the shared values of truth and justice. Learning from the past isn't just about preserving facts. It's about ensuring that the lessons of history guide our future.

A Victory for Free Speech?

True freedom of speech includes the ability to voice dissenting opinions. Pepe's ability to share his views remains intact, but societal critique reflects the collective exercise of free speech by others. Freedom of expression is a cornerstone of democratic societies, but it comes with the responsibility to uphold historical truth and resist rhetoric that obscures or minimizes atrocities. Pepe's framing of his film and the surrounding discourse exemplifies how revisionist ideas can be repackaged under the guise of neutrality and free speech. As we engage with art and commentary on history, critical analysis is essential to identify and challenge such attempts at twisting history.

What are your thoughts on this topic?

---

Disclaimer: For this article, I reached out to both Alessandro Pepe / Alexx Hermánn and Leone Frisa for comment. Neither had responded to my request before the deadline. I remain open to including their perspectives should they choose to provide them in the future.

---

Sources and further reading:

"You've shed blood" on YouTube.

My Honor Was Loyalty on IMDB.

Analysis of historical revisionism at United States Holocaust Memorial Museum.

Holocaust memorial at risk at United States Holocaust Memorial Museum.

On free speech and its limits at Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

Footnotes

1. Edward H. Carr, What is History? (1990) 11. ↩

2. Zac Russ, "MOVIE REVIEW: 'My Honor was Loyalty' Will Make You Rethink Many Viewpoints", The Paper Wolf: The official online student news source of Saint Paul's School, link: https://thepaperwolf.com/2017/05/22/movie-review-my-honor-was-loyalty-will-make-you-rethink-many-viewpoints/ (checked 20 January 2025). ↩