Thank you for purchasing this Free Press eBook.
* * *
Join our mailing list and get updates on new releases, deals, bonus content and other great books from Free Press and Simon & Schuster.
CLICK HERE TO SIGN UP
or visit us online to sign up at
eBookNews.SimonandSchuster.com
CONTENTS
Preface
1. Canaries in the Mine: Holocaust Denial and the Limited Power of Reason
2. The Antecedents: History, Conspiracy, and Fantasy
3. In the Shadow of World War II: Denial’s Initial Steps
4. The First Stirrings of Denial in America
5. Austin J. App: The World of Immoral Equivalencies
6. Denial: A Tool of the Radical Right
7. Entering the Mainstream: The Case of Arthur Butz
8. The Institute for Historical Review
9. The Gas Chamber Controversy
10. The Battle for the Campus
11. Watching on the Rhine: The Future Course of Holocaust Denial
Appendix:
Twisting the Truth: Zyklon-B, the Gas Chambers, and the Diary of Anne Frank
Notes
Footnotes
Index
To the victims and the survivors of the Holocaust and to those who preserve and tell their story
“Remember the days of yore,
Learn the lessons of the generation that came before you.”
—Deuteronomy 32:7
PREFACE
When I first began studying Holocaust denial, people would stare at me strangely. Incredulous, they would ask, “You take those guys seriously?” Invariably I would be challenged with the query, “Why are you wasting your time on those kooks?” My intention to write a book on this topic would have evoked no stronger a reaction if I were to write about flat-earth theorists.
That situation has changed dramatically. Regrettably, I no longer have to convince others of the relevance of this work. In fact, those who once questioned my choice of a topic now ask when the book will be available. The deniers’ recent activity has fostered enhanced interest that gives my work unanticipated relevance. But rather than be delighted at no longer having to convince people that this is a legitimate topic, I wish we could still afford the luxury of wondering whether we should take these people seriously. Given the terrible harm they can cause, I would have much preferred to pursue something obscure than an issue that is now so relevant.
This has been a difficult project because at times I have felt compelled to prove something I knew to be true. I had constantly to avoid being inadvertently sucked into a debate that is no debate and an argument that is no argument. It has been a disconcerting and, at times, painful task that would have been impossible without the aid and support of a variety of people. Without them I would have never emerged from this morass. A number of friends and colleagues carefully read and commented on portions of this manuscript. Their observations and criticisms enhanced my work immeasurably. My profound thanks to Arnold Band, Yisrael Gutman, Manuel Prutschi, Michael Nutkiewicz, Regina Morantz-Sanchez, David Ellenson, Michael Berenbaum, David Blumenthal, and Grace Grossman. In addition, I received important assistance from Gail Gans and the research department of the Anti-Defamation League. Adaire Klein, chief librarian of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, graciously made the Center’s resources available to me, as did Elizabeth Koenig of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. Tony Lehrman of the Institute for Jewish Affairs in London generously helped with research. Manuel Prutschi of the Canadian Jewish Congress provided me with important background information on the activities of Ernst Zundel. Michael Maroko and Jeff Mausner shared important aspects of the Mel Mermelstein case with me. Shelly Z. Shapiro was particularly generous with her time and energy.
I would like to thank Yehuda Bauer, the chairman of the Vidal Sassoon Center for the Study of Antisemitism, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, who was a patient and valuable colleague throughout.
Elliot Dorff, Peter Hayes, Elinor Langer, Laurie Levenson, Doug Mirell, Larry Powell, Claudia Koonz, Jason Berry, Alex Heard, Terry Pristin, Paul Kessler, Joyce Appelby, Riki Heilik, Rutty Gross, Mark Saperstein, Glenda B. Minkin, and Sherry Woocher all gave their time and insights. Kenneth Stein of the American Jewish Committee provided important data on the deniers’ recent activities.
At The Free Press, Erwin Glikes recognized the importance of this work from the outset. At a time when others were looking at me strangely and wondering why I was bothering with this project, he urged me to move forward with it. Adam Bellow was a precise and demanding editor, exactly what I needed and wanted. His support of this project and his sensitivity to the broader dangers of Holocaust denial were crucial in helping me reach this stage. Susan Llewellyn copy edited with careful attention. Edith Lewis helped ensure speedy production of the final manuscript.
I complete this book as one chapter of my life has closed and a new one is opening. Finishing the book would have been impossible if not for the support of a close circle of friends. They were like family: loving, dependable—particularly at times of crisis—and supportive of me even when it was difficult to be so. Though I am now physically distant from most of them, they remain quite near, having taught me that God’s presence can be found in many different places and made manifest in a variety of ways (Genesis 28:16).
Deborah E. Lipstadt
Atlanta, Georgia
January 14, 1993
CHAPTER ONE
Canaries in the Mine
Holocaust Denial and the Limited Power of Reason
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.
—Thomas Jefferson1
You are mistaken if you believe that anything at all can 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.
—Theodor Mommsen2
The producer was incredulous. She found it hard to believe that I was turning down an opportunity to appear on her nationally televised show: “But you are writing a book on this topic. It will be great publicity.” I explained repeatedly that I would not participate in a debate with a Holocaust denier. The existence of the Holocaust was not a matter of debate. I would analyze and illustrate who they were and what they tried to do, but I would not appear with them. (To do so would give them a legitimacy and a stature they in no way deserve. It would elevate their antisemitic ideology—which is what Holocaust denial is—to the level of responsible historiography—which it is not.) Unwilling to accept my no as final, she vigorously condemned Holocaust denial and all it represented. Then, in one last attempt to get me to change my mind, she asked me a question: “I certainly don’t agree with them, but don’t you think our viewers should hear the other side?”
I soon discovered that this was not to be an isolated incident. Indeed, in the months before I completed this manuscript, I had one form or another of this conversation too many times. A plethora of television and radio shows have discovered Holocaust denial. Recently the producer of a nationally syndicated television talk show was astounded when I turned down the opportunity to appear because it would entail “discussing” the issue with two deniers. She was even more taken aback when she learned that hers was not the first invitation I had rejected. Ironically—or perhaps frighteningly—she had turned to me because she read my work while taking a course on the Holocaust. When the show aired, in April 1992 deniers were given the bulk of the time to speak their piece. Then Holocaust survivors were brought on to try to “refute” their comments. Before the commercial break the host, Montel Williams, ur
ged viewers to stay tuned so that they could learn whether the Holocaust is a “myth or is it truth.”
My refusal to appear on such shows with deniers is inevitably met by producers with some variation on the following challenge: Shouldn’t we hear their ideas, opinions, or point of view? Their willingness to ascribe to the deniers and their myths the legitimacy of a point of view is of as great, if not greater, concern than are the activities of the deniers themselves. What is wrong, I am repeatedly asked, with people hearing a “different perspective”? Unable to make the distinction between genuine historiography and the deniers’ purely ideological exercise, those who see the issue in this light are important assets in the deniers’ attempts to spread their claims. This is precisely the deniers’ goal: They aim to confuse the matter by making it appear as if they are engaged in a genuine scholarly effort when, of course, they are not.
The attempt to deny the Holocaust enlists a basic strategy of distortion. Truth is mixed with absolute lies, confusing readers who are unfamiliar with the tactics of the deniers. Half-truths and story segments, which conveniently avoid critical information, leave the listener with a distorted impression of what really happened. The abundance of documents and testimonies that confirm the Holocaust are dismissed as contrived, coerced, or forgeries and falsehoods.3 This book is an effort to illuminate and demonstrate how the deniers use this methodology to shroud their true objectives.
My previous book on the Holocaust dealt with the American press’s coverage—or lack thereof—of the persecution of the Jews from 1933 to 1945. Much of the story that I told justly deserved the title Beyond Belief. For most editors and reporters this story was literally beyond belief, and the press either missed or dismissed this news story, burying specific news of gas chambers, death camps, and mass killings in tiny articles deep inside the papers.
When I turned to the topic of Holocaust denial, I knew that I was dealing with extremist antisemites who have increasingly managed, under the guise of scholarship, to camouflage their hateful ideology. However, I did not then fully grasp the degree to which I would be dealing with a phenomenon far more unbelievable than was my previous topic. On some level it is as unbelievable as the Holocaust itself and, though no one is being killed as a result of the deniers’ lies, it constitutes abuse of the survivors. It is intimately connected to a neofascist political agenda. Denial of the Holocaust is not the only thing I find beyond belief. What has also shocked me is the success deniers have in convincing good-hearted people that Holocaust denial is an “other side” of history—ugly, reprehensible, and extremist—but an other side nonetheless. As time passes and fewer people can personally challenge these assertions, their campaign will only grow in intensity.
The impact of Holocaust denial on high school and college students cannot be precisely assessed. At the moment it is probably quite limited. Revisionist incidents have occurred on a number of college campuses, including at a midwestern university when a history instructor used a class on the Napoleonic Wars to argue that the Holocaust was a propaganda hoax designed to vilify the Germans, that the “worst thing about Hitler is that without him there would not be an Israel,” and that the whole Holocaust story was a ploy to allow Jews to accumulate vast amounts of wealth. The instructor defended himself by arguing that he was just trying to present “two sides” of the issue because the students’ books only presented the “orthodox view.”4 When the school dismissed him for teaching material that was neither relevant to the course nor of any “scholarly substance,” some students complained that he had been unfairly treated.5 During my visit to that campus in the aftermath of the incident, a number of his students argued that the instructor had brought articles to class that “proved his point.” Others asserted, “He let us think.”6 Few of the students seemed to have been genuinely convinced by him, but even among those who were not, there was a feeling that somehow firing him violated the basic American ideal of fairness—that is, everyone has a right to speak his or her piece. These students seemed not to grasp that a teacher has a responsibility to maintain some fidelity to the notion of truth.
High school teachers have complained to the United States Holocaust Memorial Council that when they teach the Holocaust in their classes, they increasingly find students who have heard about Holocaust denial and assume it must have some legitimacy. I have encountered high school and college students who feel that the deniers’ view should at least be mentioned as a “controversial” but somewhat valid view of the Holocaust. Colleagues have related that their students’ questions are increasingly informed by Holocaust denial: “How do we know that there really were gas chambers?” “What proof do we have that the survivors are telling the truth?” “Are we going to hear the German side?” This unconscious incorporation of the deniers’ argument into the students’ thinking is particularly troublesome. It is an indication of the deniers’ success in shaping the way coming generations will approach study of the Holocaust.
One of the tactics deniers use to achieve their ends is to camouflage their goals. In an attempt to hide the fact that they are fascists and antisemites with a specific ideological and political agenda—they state that their objective is to uncover historical falsehoods, all historical falsehoods. Thus they have been able to sow confusion among even the products of the highest echelons of the American educational establishment. A history major at Yale University submitted his senior essay on the Luftwaffe in the Spanish Civil War to the Journal of Historical Review, the leading Holocaust denial journal, which in format and tone mimics serious, legitimate social science journals. The student acknowledged that he had not closely examined the Journal before submitting his essay. He selected it from an annotated bibliography where it was listed along with respected historical and social science journals. Based on its description, title, and, most significantly, its proximity to familiar journals, he assumed it was a legitimate enterprise dedicated to the reevaluation of historical events.
Deniers have found a ready acceptance among increasingly radical elements, including neo-Nazis and skinheads, in both North America and Europe. Holocaust denial has become part of a mélange of extremist, racist, and nativist sentiments. Neo-Nazis who once argued that the Holocaust, however horrible, was justified now contend that it was a hoax. As long as extremists espouse Holocaust denial, the danger is a limited one. But that danger increases when the proponents of these views clean up their act and gain entry into legitimate circles. Though they may look and act like “your uncle from Peoria,” they do so without having abandoned any of their radical ideas.7 David Duke’s political achievements are evidence of this. The neo-Nazi Duke, a former Imperial Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan and a Holocaust denier, was elected to the Louisiana state legislature in the late 1980s. Two years later he won 40 percent of the vote in the race for the U.S. Senate. In his November 1991 race for governor, he received close to seven hundred thousand votes. He subsequently entered the 1992 presidential campaign. Despite the fact that his efforts were soon eclipsed, he managed to attract a significant number of followers. Duke, who celebrated Adolf Hitler’s birthday until late in the 1980s, has been quite candid about his views on the Holocaust.8 In a letter accompanying the Crusader, the publication of the National Association for the Advancement of White People (NAAWP)—an organization Duke created—he not only described the Holocaust as a “historical hoax” but wrote that the “greatest” Holocaust was “perpetrated on Christians by Jews.”9 Jews fostered the myth of the Holocaust, he claimed, because it generates “tremendous financial aid” for Israel and renders organized Jewry “almost immune from criticism.”10 In 1986 Duke declared that Jews “deserve to go into the ashbin of history” and denied that the gas chambers were erected to murder Jews but rather were intended to kill the vermin infesting them.11 Under Duke the NAAWP advocated the segregation of all racial minorities in different sections of the United States. (Jews were to be confined to “West Israel,” which would be composed of Manhattan and Long Island.)
<
br /> In order most effectively to spread their lies, deniers such as Duke must rewrite not only the history of World War II but also their own past lives. In order to forge his way in the political arena, David Duke had to reformulate his personal history. His efforts to distance himself from his more extremist past are reflective of deniers’ tactics. They increasingly avoid being linked with identifiable bigots. When Duke was identified as a Klansman his access to the public arena was limited. When he decided to run for office he shed his sheet and donned a three-piece suit, winning him, if not adherents, at least a respectable audience. He gained political respectability despite the fact that but a short time earlier he had sold racist, antisemitic, and denial literature, including The Hitler We Loved and Why and The Holy Book of Adolf Hitler, from his legislative offices.12
But it is not only former members of extremist groups who serve as vehicles for disseminating Holocaust denial. More mainstream individuals have assisted in this effort as well. Patrick Buchanan, one of the foremost right-wing conservative columnists in the country, used his widely syndicated column to express views that come straight from the scripts of Holocaust deniers. He argued that it was physically impossible for the gas chamber at Treblinka to have functioned as a killing apparatus because the diesel engines that powered it could not produce enough carbon monoxide to be lethal. Buchanan’s “proof” was a 1988 incident in which ninety-seven passengers on a train in Washington, D.C., were stuck in a tunnel as the train emitted carbon monoxide fumes. Because the passengers were not harmed, Buchanan extrapolated that the victims in a gas chamber using carbon monoxide from diesel engines would also not have been harmed.13 He ignored the fact that the gassings at Treblinka took as long as half an hour and that the conditions created when people are jammed by the hundreds into small enclosures, as they were at Treblinka, are dramatically different from those experienced by a group of people sitting on a train. Asked where he obtained this information, Buchanan responded, “Somebody sent it to me.”14 Buchanan has also referred to the “so-called Holocaust Survivor Syndrome.” According to him, this involves “group fantasies of martyrdom and heroics.”15, 1* I am not suggesting that Patrick Buchanan is a Holocaust denier. He has never publicly claimed that the Holocaust is a hoax. However, his attacks on the credibility of survivors testimony are standard elements of Holocaust denial. Buchanan’s ready acceptance of this information and reliance on it to make his argument are disturbing,2* for this is how elements of Holocaust denial find their way into the general culture. During the 1992 presidential campaign, when Buchanan was seeking the Republican nomination, he refused to retract these contentions. Nonetheless few of his fellow journalists were willing to challenge him on the matter. As troubling as Buchanan’s easy acceptance of these charges was the latitude given him by his colleagues.16
Denying the Holocaust Page 1