| B R I E F I
N G | Australian
Institute of Jewish Affairs Inc.No. 20 February,
1994. GPO BOX 5402CC,
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA 3001,
AUSTRALIA. PHONE. (03) 828
8570 TELEX. AA31838
FAX (03) 828
8584 | | SYDNEY
OFFICE 1ST FLOOR 395 NEW SOUTH HEAD
ROAD DOUBLE BAY NSW
2028 PHONE: (02) 362 4410
FAX: (02) 326 1676 |
AIJA
Briefings, produced by the Australian
Institute of Jewish Affairs in Melbourne, are
intended to provide academics, journalists
and policy-makers with up-to-date and
authoritative reports and analyses on vital
issues in the Jewish world, Israel and the
Middle East which might not otherwise be
accessible.  HOLOCAUST
DENIAL AND THE COMPELLING FORCE OF
REASON
Deborah
Lipstadt HOLOCAUST DENIAL is an
attack on history and knowledge. Though
Currently practised by a small group, it has the
potential to alter dramatically the way truth is
transmitted from generation to generation. Holocaust denial should not be seen as an
assault on the history of one particular group:
at its core, it threatens all those who believe
that knowledge and scholarship are among the
corner-stones of our civilisation. Just as the
Holocaust was not a tragedy for the Jews but
rather a tragedy for the whole civilisation in
which the victims were Jews, so too, denial of
the Holocaust is not a threat only to Jews and
Jewish history, but rather to all those who
believe in the ultimate power of truth and
reason. It repudiates rational discussion just
as the Holocaust itself repudiates civilised
values. Denial of the Holocaust is certainly a form
of antisemitism. And, like antisemitism or any
other form of prejudice, it is irrational and
cannot be countered with the normal and natural
forces of investigation, argument and debate.
The deniers' pseudo-historical arguments are not
only antisemitic and anti-intellectual but, in
the words of the historian Charles Maier,
'blatantly racist anthropology'.(1) The attempt to deny the Holocaust enlists
many strategies. Truth is mixed with blatant
falsehood. Readers who are unfamiliar with the
tactics of the deniers are easily confused.
Half-truths - portions of stories which
conveniently delete critical information- leave
the reader with a distorted impression of what
really happened .(2) Documents and testimonies
which confirm the Holocaust are dismissed as
contrived, as being the result of coercion or as
bold-faced lies. | What claims do the deniers make? They
begin with the relatively innocuous assumption
that war is evil. Though they speak of war in
general, they are actually talking about the
Second World War. Assigning blame to one side
is, they contend, ultimately a meaningless
enterprise; for, even in the case of the Second
World War, there really is no difference between
victor and vanquished.(3) Still, they assert, if
guilt is to be assigned, it is not the Germans
who can be accused of war-time aggression and
atrocities. The real crimes against civilisation
were committed by the Americans, the Russians,
the British and the French against Germany. The
destructive violence inflicted on the Germans by
the Allies was, in the words of Harry Elmer
Barnes - one of the seminal figures in the
history of North American Holocaust denial -
more brutal and painful than the alleged
exterminations in the gas chambers.'(4)For some deniers, Hitler was a man of peace,
pushed into war by aggressive allies. He was a
man whose only fault was that he was 'too soft,
generous and honourable'.(5) The Germans were
the true victims of the war. They suffered
through the bombing of Dresden, war-time
starvation, invasions, post-war population
transfers and brutal mistreatment by Soviet and
Allied occupiers. According to the deniers,
Germans were subjected to additional vengeance,
which masqueraded as justice, in the form of the
Nuremberg trials. Because Germany was portrayed
after the war by western historians as criminal,
it became a victim of much of the world's emotional and scholarly aggression.
The portrayal - by historians, politicians and
journalists - of Nazi Germany as an aggressive,
threatening nation which had committed
outrageous savageries was motivated, in the view
of the deniers, by ideological, scholarly and
political concerns. But it is the 'myth' of the Holocaust that
evokes the deniers' greatest passions. The
allegation that Germans committed the most
heinous crime in human history constitutes, for
them, the ultimate injustice. The world-wide
acceptance of this charge and the consequent
post-war venom towards Germany has been so
extreme that it is impossible for the Germans to
defend themselves. In the aftermath of the
Second World War, as this Holocaust 'myth'
gained international credence, the Germans faced
a 'moral' conflict. In order to be re-admitted
to the 'family of nations', Germans had to
confess their wrong-doing, even though they knew
the charges to be false. The defendants at
Nuremberg recognised that it was futile to try
to convince the world that it had been deceived,
and that the Holocaust was a myth. To have tried
to demonstrate that the charges were false would
have incurred even greater wrath. Consequently,
the Nuremberg defendants chose to defend
themselves by claiming that they were not
personally guilty. As the latest example of what
deniers regard as a wholesale charade, the East
Germans felt compelled in February 1990 to
extend a mea maxima culpa to the Jews before
embarking on plans for unification with West
Germany. According to the deniers, the charge of
genocide is a Jewish invention. Initially the
deniers and their cohorts tried to present
Germany as not truly antisemitic. In recent
years, however, more sophisticated deniers -
including Arthur Butz, a professor or electrical
engineering at Northwestern University - have
admitted that the Nazis were 'guilty' of having
expressed antisemitic sentiments. Some even
acknowledge that the Nazis committed certain
antisemitic actions. However, they also argue
that antisemitism was justified in the light of
Jewish control over Weimar Germany. But Nazi
antisemitism was not particularly significant,
the deniers contend, since the Germans,
irrespective of what they said, had no intention
of annihilating the Jews. It was simply rhetoric
designed to reassure the home audience. Citing
Nazi propaganda almost verbatim., they contend
that the Germans executed population 'transfers'
(i.e. deportations) to resolve social, economic
and labour problems. Deniers acknowledge that
some Jews were incarcerated in places such as
Auschwitz
which, they maintain, was equipped with a
swimming pool, dance hall and recreational
facilities. The Jews interned there used these
amenities to make their stay palatable and
comfortable.(6) Of course some Jews did die but,
they argue, this was the natural consequence of
war-time deprivations. | For the deniers, what happened to the
Jews is beside the point. The central factor for
them is that Jews are not victims but
victimizers. They 'stole' billions in
reparations; they destroyed Germany's good name
by spreading the 'myth' of the Holocaust; they
duped the world and won international sympathy
because of what they claimed had been done to
them. In an unparalleled miscarriage of justice,
they used this deception and the world's
sympathy 'to displace' another people so that
the State of Israel could be established.(7)This assault on the Holocaust is not a new
phenomenon. For many years Holocaust denial was
an enterprise engaged in by a small group of
political extremists and radical-fringe
pseudo-historians. Their arguments tended to
appear in poorly printed pamphlets, right-wing
publications and in neo-Nazi newspapers such as
Spotlight. At first sight, it seems impossible that
anyone could or would take them seriously. Their
arguments lie so far beyond the accepted pale of
scholarly discourse and historical argument that
it initially seems ludicrous to devote much, if
any, mental energy to them. Given the
preponderance of evidence from victims,
bystanders and perpetrators, why waste time
worry ing about them? No rational thinker would
pay them the least attention. Besides, what possible impact could such
people have? Since they are a group that is
motivated by a strange conglomeration of
conspiracy theories, antisemitic ravings and
neo-Nazi tendencies, the natural impulse of many
rational people - including historians and
social scientists - is to summarily dismiss them
as an irrelevant fringe political group. Some
have equated them with the 'flat earth'
theorists, worthy, at best, of bemused attention
but not of proper analysis or concern. There are, however, a number of compelling
reasons for taking them seriously. First, their
modus operandi has changed in the past decade,
and they have dedicated themselves to convincing
the world that they are engaged in a serious
historical enterprise. Their books and journals
have been given an academic format and they have
worked hard to find ways to insinuate themselves
into the arena of serious historical debate and
deliberation. They have taken great pains to
disguise their 'political positions', and they
'masquerade themselves as [engaged in]
genuine scholarly efforts' .(8) Currently they
are concentrating their activities on the
college campuses where they are trying to
stimulate debate on the 'existence' of the
Holocaust. Ironically it is there that they may
find their most fertile field as is evident from
the success they have had in placing
advertisements denying the Holocaust in college
newspapers. But it is not only their chosen strategies
but rather their arguments which have changed.
They have strengthened their ties with
functioning political groups in both the United
States and Europe. Although these groups are
small, their political influence and power seem
to be increasing relatively swiftly. In many
cases the extremist groups with which they have
aligned themselves add Holocaust denial to the
melange of extremist, racist and nativist
sentiments that they espouse.(9) In certain
instances, established politicians have engaged
in forms of Holocaust denial. One of the most
recent examples is that of Croatian President,
Franjo Tudjman, who recently wrote of the
'emotional, biased testimonies and exaggerated
data' used to estimate the number of victims of
the Holocaust. He also made a point in his book,
Wastelands -Historical Truth, by putting the
word Holocaust in quotation marks
throughout.(10) It is likely, as Eastern Europe
is beset increasingly by nationalism and ethnic
rivalries, that groups -both ethnic and
political - which have been accused of
collaborating with the Nazis in the annihilation
of the Jews, will fall back on Tudjman's
strategy of playing down what happened. In March
1991, at a rally in Slovakia, a crowd of
approximately 7,000 protesters chanted
antisemitic and anti-Czech slogans, and waved
portraits of Nazi war criminal Josef Tiso who
was directly involved in the deportation and
annihilation of Jews. (They also, incidentally,
physically assaulted President Havel.) During
the rally, recordings of Tiso's speeches were
broadcast as part of an effort to whitewash his
role during the Second World War and to
resurrect him as a national hero, his wanton
antisemitic activities having been either
minimised or completely forgotten. | There is a danger, moreover, in
assuming that, because these arguments are so
outlandish, they can simply be ignored. As Colin
Holmes observed in his analysis of Holocaust
denial in Britain, Holocaust 'revisionist views
of the world are no more bizarre than those
enshrined in The Protocols of the Elders of
Zion, a pamphlet claiming to present evidence of
a secret plan to establish Jewish world
supremacy.(11) In fact the revisionists draw a
great deal of inspiration from The Protocols, a
work which has enjoyed a sustained and vibrant
life despite having long ago been proved a
forgery.Many years ago, the German historian Theodor
Mommsen warned that it would be a mistake to
believe that 'reason' alone was enough to
prevent people from believing such falsehoods.
If this were the case, then there would be no
room for racism, antisemitism and other forms of
prejudice. In despair Mommsen wrote: 'You are
mistaken if you believe that anything at all
could be achieved by reason. In years past I
thought so myself and kept protesting against
the monstrous infamy that is antisemitism. But
it is useless, completely useless.'(12) To expect reason, rationality, dialogue and
discourse to constitute the sole barriers
against the pernicious attempts to deny the fact
of the Nazi annihilation of European Jewry would
be to ignore one of the ultimate lessons of the
event itself. Reasoned dialogue cannot withstand
an assault by the magical power of falsehood
indefinitely. There was no rational basis for
the Nazi atrocities. There was, however, the
irrational appeal of antisemitism. Hitler and
the Nazis understood this and used it to gain
power. Mythical thinking and the force of the
irrational have a strange and compelling allure.
Intellectuals in Nazi Germany were not immune to
irrational, mystical thinking. Today,
intellectuals in the West have shown themselves
less likely to succumb to such falsehoods. But
they have fallen prey in another fashion: some
have supported Holocaust denial in the name of
'free speech', 'free inquiry' or 'intellectual
freedom'.(13) There is, of course, a significant
difference between reasoned dialogue and
anti-intellectual pseudo-scientific
arguments. It is this commitment to 'free inquiry' and
the power of irrational mythical thinking which
may well explain, at least in part, how the
revisionists have managed to ally themselves
with various establishment figures and
institutions. Noam Chomsky[*] is
probably the best known among them. Chomsky
wrote the introduction to one of Robert
Faurisson's books and, in it, he argued that
scholars' ideas, however distasteful, cannot be
censored. Though Chomsky - whom Alfred Kazin
described as a 'dupe of intellectual pride so
overweening that he is incapable of making
distinctions between totalitarian and democratic
societies, between oppressors and victims' - is
a unique case, his argument that the
revisionists should be heard because theirs is a
legitimate point of view shocked many people,
including those who thought they were inured to
Chomsky's antics.(14) Chomsky's arguments have
recently been voiced by student leaders on
various college campuses and, in certain cases,
by college presidents. Chomsky's example illustrates why the dangers
of the 'free inquiry' argument should be taken
seriously, Even the supposed protectors of the
western liberal ideal of reasoned dialogue can
fall prey to the convoluted notion that all
arguments are equally entitled to a fair hearing
fail to recognise that the deniers are not
searching for truth. The deniers' arguments are
composed of pseudo-reasoned contentions which
are motivated by a variety of 'isms' including
racism, extremism and virulent antisemitism. While the precise impact of the deniers is
difficult to assess, there is no doubt that in
the past decade their productivity has
increased, their style has changed and,
consequently, their impact has intensified.
Their publications, including the Journal of
Historical Review, imitate legitimate scholarly
publications, and thus confuse those who do not
immediately understand the journal's
intention. [Website
note: for the ADL's persecution of the Jewish
author Noam Chomsky, see: 1
| 2
| 3
] | Such confusion has already occurred in
the highest circles of the American educational
establishment. In 1986, a history student at
Yale University submitted his thesis on the
German
Luftwaffe in the Spanish Civil War to the
Journal of Historical Review which happily
published it and paid him $250. Most academic
journals offer no compensation, especially to
students seeking to publish student essays. The
student acknowledged that he did not look at the
journal prior to submitting his essay. He simply
found it listed among other historical journals
and assumed, based on its description and title,
that it was a legitimate publication.Outside academic circles, the deniers'
arguments have found a comfortable and ready
acceptance among increasingly vocal and hostile
extremist antisemitic elements in both North
America and Europe. Neo-Nazi extremist groups
have adopted their theories, as have groups of
more recent vintage, such as skinheads. These extremists have become increasingly
dangerous as they have infiltrated legitimate
political circles, without genuinely abandoning
any of their political or racial prejudices.
David Duke's recent political achievements are
evidence of this. The neo-Nazi Duke, a former
Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan, and a Holocaust
denier, was elected to the Louisiana state
legislature and won 40 per cent of the vote in
his attempt to win the Republican nomination for
the United States Senate. He won 60 per cent of
the white vote and, although he was defeated in
November 1991 in his bid for the Governor's
office, he garnered close to 700,000 votes. He
then entered the campaign for President.
Identified simply as a Klansman, he had little
public appeal. Today, however, the situation has
changed. He has shed his sheet and donned a
three-piece suit, winning him, if not adherents,
at least a respectable audience, despite the
fact that as recently as two years ago he was
apparently selling antisemitic and Holocaust
denial literature from his legislative
office. Similar trends are evident elsewhere - in
France, for example, where Jean-Marie Le Pen,
leader of the extreme right-wing Front National,
declared, in an overt attempt to encourage those
who deny the Holocaust, that the Nazi gas
chambers are 'a point of detail' in
history.(15) Many people regard the arguments of Holocaust
denial as a test of free speech. A few years
ago, shortly after the publication of my book on
the coverage of the Holocaust by the American
press,(16) I participated in a number of radio
interviews and phone-in shows. On several
occasions I was asked by the host whether I
would appear with or 'debate' a revisionist.(17)
When I refused, the producers were generally
incredulous, unable to comprehend why I was
unwilling to do so. One producer, unwilling to
accept my 'no' as final said: 'I don't agree
with them at all, but isn't this simply another
"side" which our listeners should hear?' No one has been able to measure accurately or
scientifically the impact of Holocaust denial on
high school and college students. At the moment
it is probably quite limited. On a number of
college campuses, revisionist incidents have
occurred, including most recently one at Indiana
University where an instructor in the History
Department told his students that the Holocaust
was a propaganda hoax designed to make the
Germans look evil. Though the University
promptly dismissed him for failing to teach the
set course material, some of his students
complained that he had been unfairly treated.
During my visit to that campus in the aftermath
of the incident, one student argued that the
instructor had brought materials to class which
'proved his point'. In a number of informal conversations with
those who help train history and social studies
teachers to give lessons on the Holocaust, I
have learned of various instances where teachers
have felt that the revisionist view should, at
the very least, be mentioned briefly as a
'controversial' but somewhat valid view of the
Holocaust. College professors have also been
confronted with students who have complained
that their course on the Holocaust did not
include a presentation of the 'other side'. Those who are committed to the liberal idea
of dialogue may fail to recognise that certain
views cannot be discussed rationally,
particularly when those views - as in the case
of Holocaust denial - are not based on rational
or genuine enquiry. Thomas Jefferson long ago
argued that in a setting committed to the honest
pursuit of truth all ideas and opinions must be
tolerated. But he added a caveat, one which is
particularly applicable to our
investigation: | 'We are not afraid to follow truth
wherever it may lead, nor to tolerate any error
so long as reason is left free to combat
it.'(18)In the case of Holocaust denial, reason
becomes hostage to a particularly odious
ideology. We are not, of course, suggesting that
the deniers should be muzzled: they have the
right to free speech, however odious their
speech may be. But there is a qualitative
difference between barring someone's right to
speech and providing them with a platform from
which to deliver their message. Chomsky did not
provide them with the platform but he 'stood
next to them' and, by so doing, commended their
message to the public. The impact of this message on young people is
a valid concern since they often seem to be the
most willing to listen to revisionist claims.
Walter Reich observed in the Washington Post a
number of years ago that for young people
'everything is debatable and nothing should be
accepted as true that was not personally seen
and experienced.'(19) Though instances of outright denial are cause
for concern, there is another less tangible, but
potentially more insidious consequence of
Holocaust denial. Extremists, in any debate,
have a tendency to pull the centre of that
debate to a more radical position. For example,
those who argue that any form of abortion should
be outlawed make those who would permit abortion
only when the mother is a young girl and the
victim of incest seem more reasonable. To some
degree this is what the deniers have done and
continue to do to the legitimate debate about
various aspects of the Holocaust. Greater space has been given to those who
espouse ideas that once would have dismissed as
historically fallacious.(20) The current
historians' struggle in Germany, in which the
Holocaust is relativised, must be understood as
a cousin - however distant - of Holocaust
denial. While the historians involved do not
deny the Holocaust, they proffer many similar
arguments - that the Allies pushed Hitler into
war, or the Nazis had the right to consider the
Jews as a legitimate threat because of Chaim
Weizmann's statement in 1939 that the Jews would
fight alongside the British to defeat Germany.
Exponents of these viewpoints may have different
motives from the deniers, but the results are
surprisingly similar: the blurring of boundaries
between fact and fiction, and between persecuted
and persecutor. The relativists may have no sympathy for the
deniers. But their combined efforts have
fostered the creation of what might be called
the 'yes-but' syndrome.(21) Yes, there was a
Holocaust -but were there really six million
Jews killed? Yes, there was a Holocaust - but
were there really gas chambers? Yes, there was a
Holocaust - but the Nazis were only trying to
defend themselves against their enemies. Yes,
there was a Holocaust - but most Jews died of
starvation and disease (as is the case in every
war). Yes, there was a Holocaust - but Jews
brought it on themselves. Yes, there was a
Holocaust - but it was essentially no different
than many conflagrations in which innocent
bystanders are killed. Yes, there was a
Holocaust - but there have been so many horrible
massacres in history. Why then do we only hear
about the Holocaust? The answer to this final
question is obvious to the deniers: because of
the insidious power of the Jews: they have
managed to use the 'myth' of the Holocaust to
justify a wide range t)f post-war evils in which
they have engaged. Ultimately, given enough latitude, the
'yes-but' approach robs the Holocaust of its
uniqueness and its capacity to offer the world
ethical, moral or political lessons. I have
found such an attitude present not only among
the deniers but among students and others who
feel no moral outrage about the Holocaust but
rather see it simply as a matter to be placed in
its appropriate cultural context. The Holocaust
is thereby reduced to a merely relative
evil. | This 'yes-but' approach is far more
insidious than outright denial. It nurtures and
is nurtured by Holocaust denial. This is not to
suggest that relativists who endorse a form of
the 'yes-but' approach - such as Ernst Nolte,
the leading historian among the German
relativists - are crypto-deniers. What is clear,
however, is that Holocaust denial has given
relativism a strange cloak of respectability; it
has stretched the parameters of the debate so
far to one side that opinions that would have
been considered historically untenable now find
acceptance simply because they are not denial.
Since I began work on Holocaust denial, I have
confronted this 'yes-but' attitude in both
academic and popular settings in the form of
questions which are prefaced by 'I am not a
denier but isn't there real doubt about...?'
That blank is generally filled with the
existence of gas chambers, Hitler's
knowledge of the Final Solution, the
innocence of the Jews or some other fundamental
aspect of the Holocaust.Raising questions would be perfectly
legitimate if distinctions were scrupulously
drawn between fact and fiction in order to
refine knowledge. The recent discussion by
historians about the number of Jews who were
actually killed at Auschwitz and the subsequent
acknowledgement that the number of victims
killed there is smaller than was originally
claimed, is an example of that form of scholarly
inquiry. But deniers are only interested in
reshaping history in order to rehabilitate the
persecutors and demonise the victims. Although relatives do not show sympathy for
deniers, deniers sometimes use the 'yes-but'
approach in order to find their way into more
legitimate circles. The most striking example of
this is the Leuchter
Report in which the author, Fred Leuchter,
purports to prove that there were no gas
chambers in Auschwitz. But he is quick to argue
that he is not a denier of the Holocaust(22); he
simply believes that there were no gas chambers.
This disclaimer notwithstanding, deniers have
funded his work and disseminated his findings.
But if there were no gas chambers, then what
happened at Auschwitz, Majdanek, Treblinka and
Sachsenhausen? How did the people die there?
From disease and food shortages? If there were
no systematic means of destruction in place, how
many could have died there? Denial of the
existence of gas chambers places Leuchter at the
heart of Holocaust denial itself. The modus operandi of Holocaust denial is
distortion of the truth. One examines the
methods used with some hesitancy, since readers
might wonder how inconsequential the deniers can
be if serious historians do not simply dismiss
them. Doesn't the fact that scholars accord them
attention suggest that they are not merely
falsifiers and racists? Doesn't research on them
give them the publicity they crave? Indeed,
revisionists are quick to pounce on any
discussion of their work - including reports
that demonstrate how they misquote and distort
the findings of legitimate historical inquiry -
as evidence of the serious consideration
scholars are giving them. The danger that we might inadvertently make
them seem more credible is not the only reason
for trepidation. There is another more serious
problem inherent in the process of refuting the
deniers. Even if that refutation is limited to
scholarly articles and essays, it is possible,
as the French historian Pierre Vidal-Naquet has
observed, that in the course of answering the
deniers, an 'exterminationist' school will be
created in opposition to the 'revisionist'
school, as was the case when radio show
producers wondered why I wouldn't 'talk to the
other side'. This might elevate Holocaust denial
to the level of a legitimate ideological
enterprise.(23) In fact, deniers have recently
taken to calling 'exterminationists' those who
do research on the Holocaust, thereby locating
denial in juxtaposition to truly serious inquiry
- hence the significance of the name
'revisionism' which they have adopted for
themselves.(24) Another danger was described in the New York
Review of Books a number of years ago by
Marshall Sahlins, who expressed his impatience
with social scientists who tried to disprove
something which, due to the existence of
overwhelming and incontrovertible proof, is
universally accepted as fact. Such arguments,
Sahlins observed, demonstrated a real
indifference to historical sources and followed
the familiar American pattern of enterprising
social science journalism. Professor X puts out
some outrageous theory, such as the Nazis didn't
kill the Jews, human civilisation comes from
another planet or there is no such thing as
cannibalism. Since facts are plainly against
him, X's main argument consists of the
expression in highest moral tones of his own
disregard for all available evidence to the
contrary. He rises to the more elevated
analytical plane of an ad hominem attack on the
authors of the primary sources and those
credulous enough to believe them. All of which
provokes Y and Z to issue a rejoinder ... X now
becomes 'the controversial Professor X' and his
book is respectfully reviewed by
non-professionals in Time, Newsweek and the New
Yorker. There follows appearances on radio,
television and in the columns of daily
newspapers.(25) In such cases, normal and accepted standards
of scholarship, including the proper use of
evidence and the quality of research, are
discarded. What remains, in the words of this
eminent anthropologist, is a 'scandal'. | It is doubtful that we shall witness in
the near future a plethora of instances of
outright denial. But subtle, and consequently
more dangerous, theories continue to appear. The
course of this development and the nature of the
theories, however pseudo-scientific they may be,
must be fully examined.We need not waste time or effort answering
each and every one t)f the deniers' contentions.
It would be a never-ending effort to respond to
arguments posed by those who freely falsify
findings, quote out of context and simply
dismiss reams of testimony because it counters
their arguments. Unlike true scholars they have
little if any respect for data or evidence.
Their commitment is to an ideology and their
'findings' are shaped by it. However, there is a critical difference
between debate and analysis. To debate them is
to give their theory the imprimatur of a
legitimate historical opinion. It is far better
to analyse who these people are and what it is
they are trying to accomplish. Above all, it is
essential to expose the illusion of reasoned
inquiry that conceals extremist views. It is
only when society - particularly that portion of
society committed to intellectual debate
-comprehends the full import of this group's
intentions that we can be sure that history will
not be reshaped and recreated to fit a variety
of pernicious ulterior motives. The speciousness of the deniers' arguments,
rather than the arguments themselves, demands a
response. The insidious way in which denial
enters the mainstream debate - often disguised
as relativism- must be fully exposed as it is
crucial, ultimately, to an understanding of the
deniers' influence. These are not simply arcane
controversies between scholars or, in this case,
pseudo-scholars. In the words of the historian
Donald Kagan, the past and, more importantly,
our perception of the past, have a powerful
'influence on the way we act in response to our
problems today. What historians and others say
happened and what they say it means. . .makes a
great difference'.(26) Relativists and deniers
are well aware of this. It is not by chance that
one of the fathers of American Holocaust denial,
Harry Elmer Barnes, believed that history could
serve as a 'means for a deliberate and conscious
instrument of social transformation'.(27) History matters. Adolf Hitler's rise to power
was facilitated by the artful way in which he
advanced views of recent German history that
appealed to the masses. It did not matter if it
was a distorted view; it was one which appealed
to many people and, more importantly, explained
their current situation. David Duke has tried to
modify his personal history as well as the
history of the United States and his region.
That which he has been unable to reshape, he and
his followers have declared irrelevant. On the
eve of the election for Governor of Louisiana,
one of his supporters remarked in a television
interview: 'What do his views on Jews and Blacks
have to do with this election?' Though the
interviewer did not respond, the answer was
obvious: it was, simply put, 'everything'. The deniers hope to achieve their goals by
winning recognition as a legitimate scholarly
cadre and by planting seeds of doubt in the
younger generation. Only by recognising the
threat that denial poses to reason and the
pursuit of truth, will we expose denial for what
it truly is and ultimately refuse any shred of
legitimacy to it and its purveyors. | REFERENCES1. Charles Maier, The Unmasterable Past:
History, Holocaust and German National Identity
(Cambridge, MA 1988), p. 64. 2. For an example, see how the revisionists
have treated Anne
Frank's diary in The Diary of Anne Frank:
The Critical Edition, ed David Barnouw and
Gerrold van der Stroom, trans Arnold J Pomerans
and B.M Mooyart-Doubleday (London, 1989), pp
91-101. 3. Conversation with Robert Faurisson, Vichy,
France, June 1989. 4. Harry Elmer Barnes, 'Revisionism: a key to
peace', Rampart Journal, vol. 2, 1966, p.
33. 5. Harry Elmer Barnes, Revisionism and
Brainwashing: A Survey of the War-Guilt Question
in German after Two World Wars (privately
printed 1962), p. 33. 6. This was part of the defence testimony
given at the trial of Ernst Zündel in
Canada. 7. Conversation with Robert Faurisson, Vichy,
France, June 1989. 8. Maier, The Unmasterable Past, p. 64. 9. Their entree into the academic sphere has
not met with much success. Obviously, no serious
or respected historian would give them any
credence. The only historian who has associated
himself with them, David Irving, has long been
on the very fringes of scholarly circles and
has, in fact, consistently
been dismissed by many scholars for his
strange theses. 10. Robert D. Kaplan, 'Croatianism: the
latest Balkan ugliness', New Republic, 25
November 1991, p. 16. 11. Colin Holmes, 'Historical revisionism in
Britain: the politics of history', in Trends in
Historical Revisionism: History as a Political
Device (London, 1985), p. 8. 12. Marvin Perry, 'Denying the Holocaust:
history as myth and delusion', Encore American
and Worldwide News, September 1981, p.
28-33. 13. Their behaviour brings to mind a
statement attributed to Lionel Trilling: 'Their
minds are so open that their brains feel
out.' 14. Alfred Kazin, 'Americans right, left and
indifferent: responses to the Holocaust',
Dimensions, vol. 4, no. 1, 1988, p. 12. 15. US News and World Report, 28 May 1990, p.
42; Los Angeles Times, 29 May 1990. Hi, H7. 16. Deborah Lipstadt, Beyond Belief: The
American Press and the Coming of the Holocaust,
1933-1945 (New York, 1986). 17. Lucy Dawidowicz had a similar experience
on the Larry King show; see Dawidowicz, 'Lies
about the Holocaust', Commentary, December 1980,
p. 36. 18. Dumas Malone, The Sage of Monticello:
Jefferson and his Time (Boston, 1981), VI,
417-18; my thanks to David Ellenson for
reminding me of the applicability of Jefferson's
lines to this inquiry 19. Walter Reich, 'Denying the Holocaust:
prelude to what?', Washington Post, 3 May
1981. 20. For the way this has functioned in
German, see Maier, The Unmasterable Past. 21. For a discussion of how the 'yes-but'
syndrome manifested itself during the Second
World War and prevented many Americans,
particularly publishers, editors and reporters,
from grasping the implications of the reports
they were receiving, see Lipstadt, Beyond
Belief, p. 270. 22. Fred Leuchter, The Leuchter Report: The
End of a Myth, An Engineering Report on the
Alleged Execution Gas Chambers at Auschwitz,
Birkenau and Majdanek, Poland, with a forward by
Dr Robert Faurisson (Samisdat Publishers,
1988). 23. Pierre Vidal-Naquet, Democracy, vol.1/2,
April 1981. 24. Their decision to call themselves
'revisionists' was clearly a calculated one
designed to align them with other legitimate
schools of historical thought, e.g. World War I
revisionism. The implication is, of course, that
there are two schools of thought on this
issue. 25. Marshall Sahlins, New York Review of
Books, 22 March 1979. 26. Donald Kagan, 'The first revisionist
historian', Commentary, May 1988, p. 44. 27. Justus D. Doenecke, 'Harry Elmer Barnes:
prophet of a usable past', History Teacher,
February 1975, p. 273.
DEBORAH
E. LIPSTADT is Associate Professor of
Religion at Emory University in Atlanta, Ga.,
U.S.A. This article is based on research for
her forthcoming book Denying the Holocaust:
The Growing Assault on Truth and Memory (Free
Press, 1993). This article first appeared in
Patterns of Prejudice, Volume 26, Numbers
1&2, 1992, published by the Institute of
Jewish Affairs in association with the World
Jewish Congress. SPECIAL
UPDATEDeborah E. Lipstadt will be
visiting
Australia in July 1994 as a
guest of the Australian Institute of
Jewish Affairs. For additional information please
contact the A.I.J.A. Office: Tel: (03) 828 8570
Fax: (03) 828 8584 |
|
|
write
to David Irving