5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Deniers, Relativists, and Pseudo-Scholarship
By: Deborah E. Lipstadt
From: Dimensions: A Journal of Holocaust Studies , Vol. 6, No. 1
Published by the Anti-Defamation league, Brown Center for the Holocaust Studies
1. Holocaust denial should not be seen as an assault on the history of one particular group. It repudiates reasoned discussion, the way the Holocaust, itself, engulfed all civilization. Its attack on Jewish history is, like anti-Semitism, an attack on the most basic values of a reasoned society.
2. The denial of the Holocaust enlists many strategies. Truth is mixed with blatant falsehood, confusing readers who are unfamiliar with the deniers’ tactics. Half-truths fill their pages too, leaving readers with a distorted impression of what really happened.
3. What claims do the deniers make? The deniers begin with the supposition that war is evil. (They are really talking about World War II.) Assigning blame to one side is ultimately meaningless. Still, if guilt is to be found, the real crimes were committed by the Americans, the Russians, the British, and the French against Germany. The atrocities inflicted on the Germans by the Allies were, in the words of the revisionist
Harry Elmer Barnes, “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 the aggressive
Allies. He was a man whose only fault was that he was “too soft, generous, and honorable.” The Germans were the true victims of the war. They suffered as a result of bombing, wartime starvation, invasion, postwar dislocations, and brutal mistreatment by the Allied occupiers.
5. According to the deniers, Germans were additionally subjected to a vengeance which masqueraded as justice in the form of the Nuremberg trials. In their view
Germany, portrayed by Western historians after the war as criminal, remained a victim of much of the world’s emotional and scholarly aggression.
6.
But it is the “myth” of the Holocaust for which the deniers reserve their greatest passion. In their view, the accusation that Germans committed the most heinous crime in human history is the ultimate injustice. The worldwide acceptance of the charge, and the attendant venom towards Germany, has made it impossible, they say, for
Germans to defend themselves. In the aftermath of World War II, the argument goes, when Germany endeavored to be readmitted to the family of nations, Germans had to confess their wrongdoing, even though they knew that the charges were false. Even the defendants at Nuremberg knew that it would be futile to try to convince the world that it had been deceived. To have tried to demonstrate that the charges were false would obviously have incurred even greater wrath. Consequently, the Nuremberg defendants chose to defend themselves by claiming that they were not personally

Holocaust Deniers / 2
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75 guilty. As the latest example of what the 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.
7. According to the deniers, the charge of genocide is a Jewish invention. Some deniers, including Arthur Butz, a professor of electrical engineering at Northwestern
University, admit that the Nazis were “guilty” of having expressed anti-Semitic sentiments. But they believe that Nazi anti-Semitism was justified in light of alleged
“Jewish control” over the Weimar Republic. Nazi anti-Semitism wasn’t even that significant, they note, since it is their belief that Germans had no intention of annihilating Jews. Citing Nazi propaganda, almost verbatim, they contend that
Germans executed population “transfers” (i.e., deportations) to resolve social, economic, and labor problems. Deniers acknowledge that some Jews were incarcerated in places like Auschwitz, but, they maintain, the camps were equipped with recreational facilities like swimming pools and dance halls. Of course, some
Jews did die, but this, they argue, was the natural consequence of wartime deprivations.
8. For the deniers what happened to the Jews is beside the point: Jews are not victims, they are victimizers. They “stole” billions in the form of post-World War II
German reparations, destroyed Germany’s good name by spreading the “myth” of the
Holocaust, and won international sympathy because of what they claimed was done to them. In a permanent miscarriage of justice, Jews used this deception to establish the state of Israel.
9.
It is critical to understand that the deniers’ pseudo-historical arguments, in addition to being anti-intellectual, are, in the words of historian Charles Maier,
“blatantly racist.”
10. The assault on the Holocaust is not of recent vintage. 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.
11. When one first encounters them, it is hard not to wonder who could or would take them seriously. Their arguments are so beyond the pale of acceptable 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’ eyewitness accounts, it seems to be a waste of time to worry about them. Besides, what possible impact could the deniers have? Since they are a group that is motivated by a strange conglomeration of conspiracy theories, anti-
Semitic ravings, and neo-Nazi tendencies, the natural tendency is to summarily dismiss them. Some have equated them with “flat earth” theorists, worthy at best of bemused attention but not of serious analysis or concern.
12. There are a number of compelling reasons for not brushing them off. First, their modus operandi has changed in the past decade. They have dedicated themselves to

Holocaust Deniers / 3
80
85
90
95
100
105
110
115 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 insinuate themselves into the arena of legitimate historical debate and deliberation.
13. But it is not just the strategies they have chosen to present their arguments which have changed. They have also strengthened their ties with influential political groups both in the United States and Europe. Although these groups are small, their influence and power seem to be increasing rapidly. In many cases, the extremist groups with which they are aligned have made Holocaust denial part of a melange of extremist, racist, and nativist sentiments.
14. Moreover, there is a danger 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 report claiming to establish Jewish world supremacy. In fact, the revisionists draw a great deal of inspiration from the Protocols , which has enjoyed a sustained and vibrant life despite the fact that it was long ago exposed as a forgery.
15. Many years ago, German historian Theodor Mommsen warned that reason alone is not enough to keep people from believing falsehoods. If this were the case, then racism, anti-Semitism, and other forms of prejudice would find no home. 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 anti-Semitism. But it is useless, completely useless.”
16. To expect reason, rational dialogue, and discourse to constitute the sole barriers against the pernicious attempts to deny the Holocaust is to ignore one of the ultimate lessons of the event itself. There was no rational basis underlying the Nazi atrocities.
There was, however, the appeal of anti-Semitism. Mythical thinking and the forces of the irrational have a strange and compelling allure. Intellectuals are hardly immune from irrational, mythical thinking. Some do so in the name of “free speech,” “free inquiry,” or “intellectual freedom.”
17. There is a less tangible but potentially more insidious kind of denial. It is what I choose to call the “yes but” syndrome: Yes, there was a Holocaust, but were there really six million Jews killed? 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 there have been so many horrible massacres in history. Why do we hear only about the Holocaust.
18. Exponents of these viewpoints may have different motives from the deniers’, but the results are surprisingly the same: the blurring of the boundaries between fact and fiction and between persecuted and persecutor. With enough latitude, the “yes but” approach robs the Holocaust of its uniqueness and its capacity to offer the world ethical, moral, and political lessons. It reduces the Holocaust to a purely relative evil.

Holocaust Deniers / 4
120
125
130
135
140
145
150
155
19. The “yes but” approach nurtures and is nurtured by Holocaust denial. This is not to suggest that relativists, such as German historian Ernst Nolte, are crypto-deniers.
What is clear, however, is that the existence of Holocaust denial has given relativism a cloak of respectability. Denial has stretched the parameters of the debate so far to one side that questions once considered outlandish and dismissed as historically untenable, now find acceptance simply because they are not denial. These include doubts about fundamental aspects of the Holocaust – the existence of gas chambers,
Hitler’s knowledge of the Final Solution, and the innocence of the Jews.
20. Raising questions would be perfectly legitimate if distinctions were scrupulously drawn between fact and fiction in order to refine knowledge. But relativists are interested only in reshaping history and rehabilitating the persecutors.
21. Scholars must study Holocaust deniers to expose their modus operandi . Still, readers might wonder, “How much on the fringe can deniers be if serious historians do not dismiss them? Doesn’t the fact that scholars accord them attention suggest that they are legitimate? Doesn’t research on the deniers give them the publicity they crave?”
22. Indeed. revisionists are quick to seize on any discussion of their work, including reports that demonstrate how they misquote and skew the findings of legitimate historical inquiry. Such discussion appears to give them respectability.
23. The danger of inadvertently making revisionists seem credible is not the only cause for trepidation. There is another, more serious problem inherent in refuting revisionists. Even if refutation is limited to the province of scholarly articles, it is possible, as the French historian Pierre Vidal-Naquet observed, that research on denial would elevate revisionism to a legitimate ideological enterprise. Deniers have recently taken to calling those who study the Holocaust “exterminationists” to place denial in juxtaposition to truly serious inquiry; hence the significance of the name
“revisionism” which they have adopted for themselves.
24. However, there is a crucial difference between debate and analysis. To debate them is to risk giving their efforts the imprimatur of a legitimate historical option. It is far better to analyze who these people are and what it is they are trying to accomplish.
Above all, it is essential to expose the illusion of their reasoned inquiry that conceals their extremist views. It is only when society comprehends this group’s real intentions that we can be sure that history will not be reshaped to promote a variety of pernicious objectives.
25. The deniers hope to achieve their goals by winning recognition as a legitimate scholarly cadre. Though treating Holocaust denial as a topic worthy of serious research may seem to confer this recognition, exposing them for who they really are will ultimately rob them of every shred of legitimacy.
Deborah E. Lipstadt is author of Beyond Belief: The American Press and the Coming of the Holocaust 1933-1945 . She is currently writing a book on Holocaust revisionism.

Holocaust Deniers / 5
.
Answer the following question in English .
1. What – paragraph 1 – makes Holocaust denial a universal issue?
Answer:
_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
Answer the question below in Hebrew .
2. What tactics do the deniers – paragraph 2 – resort to in order to attain credibility?
Answer: ________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
Answer the following question in English .
3. What purpose did the attacks directed against the Americans – paragraph 3 – and their World War II allies serve?
Answer: ________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
Answer the following question in English .
4. In what colours is Hitler – paragraph 4 – depicted by some of the deniers?
Answer: ________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
Answer the following question in English .
5. In what light – paragraph 5 – are the Nuremberg trials presented?
Answer: ________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
Answer the following question in English .
6. Under what circumstances, and why – paragraph 6 – did the Germans plead guilty to the war crimes and other atrocities they had been charged with?
Answer: ________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________

Holocaust Deniers / 6
Answer the following question in English .
7.
How are Germany’s activities against the Jews – paragraph 7 – accounted for and excused?
Answer: ________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
Answer the following question in English .
8. How, according to the Holocaust deniers – paragraph 8 – did World Jewry benefit by spreading the “false” accusations of genocide?
Answer: ________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
Answer the following question in English .
9.
What is likely to be an historian’s initial reaction upon first coming face to face
– paragraph 11 – with Holocaust denial?
Answer: ________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
Answer the question below in Hebrew .
10. What recent developments – paragraphs 12-13 – would suggest that liberals and democrats could disregard the Holocaust denial attempt only at their peril?
Answer: ________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
Answer the following question in English .
11. To what end are the Protocols of the Elders of Zion mentioned in paragraph 14?
Answer: ________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
Answer the following question in English .
12. In what sense could Holocaust deniers – paragraph 15 – find Mommsen’s observations encouraging?
Answer: ________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________

Holocaust Deniers / 7
Choose the best answer .
13. How are intellectuals – paragraph 16 – likely to react when faced with irrational and mythical thinking? a. They will repudiate it at once. b. They will mostly be captivated by it. c. Most of them will be tempted. d. Some of them will be seduced by it.
Choose the best answer .
14. Credence is lately lent to some rather insidious views on the issue of the
Holocaust – paragraphs 17-19 – because a. they are considered irrefutable. b. they are perceived as harmless. c. they are worthless. d. they are perceived as the lesser evil.
Answer the question below in Hebrew .
15. a) What does the term relativists in paragraph 19 mean in this context?
Answer: ________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________ b) What makes the work of these relativists – paragraphs 17-20 – so insidious in the long run?
Answer: ________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
Answer the following question in English .
16. What makes the very attempts of reputable scholars – paragraphs 21-24 – to expose the deniers’ aims for what they really are such a delicate and risky undertaking?
Answer: ________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________