Denying the Holocaust
Page 35
6. Evans, In Hitler’s Shadow, pp. 49–54.
7. Maier, The Unmasterable Past, p. 20.
8. For various perspectives on Hillgruber’s contribution to this imbroglio see Maier, The Unmasterable Past, pp. 21–25; Martin Broszat, Die Zeit, Oct. 3, 1986; Gordon Craig, “The War of the German Historians,” New York Review of Books, Jan. 15, 1987. One of Hillgruber’s most virulent critics was Jürgen Habermas, Germany’s most prominent philosopher on the left. He was the one who first called attention to this debate, describing Hillgruber’s work as “scandalous.” Die Zeit, July 11, 1986; Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (hereafter referred to as FAZ), July 8, 1986. For a summary and analysis of Habermas’s response see Maier, The Unmasterable Past, pp. 39–42.
9. Michael Stürmer, Dissonanzen des Fortschritts, pp. 267, 269–70 as cited in Evans, p. 21. See also Evans, In Hitler’s Shadow, pp. 103, 173, n. 14.
10. Ernst Nolte, Three Faces of Fascism: Action Française, Italian Fascism, National Socialism (New York, 1965).
11. Joachim Fest, FAZ, Aug. 29, 1986.
12. Peter Pulzer, “The Nazi Legacy,” The Listener, June 25, 1987.
13. Anton Kaes, From Hitler to Heimat: The Return of History as Film (Cambridge, 1989), pp. 5–6.
14. Evans, In Hitler’s Shadow, p. 87.
15. Ernst Nolte, “Vergangenheit, die nicht vergehen will,” (the past that refuses to pass away) FAZ, June 6, 1986; Ernst Nolte, Der europäische Bürgerkrieg, 1917–1945 (The European Civil War), 1917–1945 (Berlin, 1987), pp. 502–4.
16. Eberhard Jäckel, “Die elende Praxis der Untersteller,” Die Zeit, Sept. 12, 1986; Craig, “The War of the German Historians,” p. 17; Maier, The Unmasterable Past, pp. 76–77.
17. Maier, The Unmasterable Past, p. 76.
18. Michael Marius, The Holocaust in History (Hanover, N.H., 1987), p. 24. For a more complete discussion of this point see Maier, The Unmasterable Past, pp. 66–99, and Evans, In Hitler’s Shadow, pp. 66–91.
19. Maier, The Unmasterable Past, pp. 74–75.
20. Ernst Nolte, “Between Myth and Revisionism,” in Aspects of the Third Reich, ed. H. W. Koch (London, 1985), p. 27; Maier, The Unmasterable Past, p. 29.
21. Nolte, Bürgerkrieg, pp. 500, 509–13, 592–93, n. 26, 29; Evans, In Hitler’s Shadow, p. 168, n. 28.
22. Nolte, Bürgerkrieg, pp. 317–18; also Nolte, “Vergangenheit”; Evans, In Hitler’s Shadow, p. 152, n. 20.
23. Evans, In Hitler’s Shadow, p. 123.
24. For discussion of another way the “yes, but” syndrome manifested itself during the 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.
25. Jewish Telegraphic Agency, Mar. 17, 1992.
26. According to Stephen J. Roth, only two of the laws, the French and Romanian, make specific reference to antisemitism. Stephen J. Roth, “Denial of the Holocaust as an Issue of Law” (to be published in Israel Yearbook of Human Rights).
27. U.S. Newswire, Aug. 27, 1992; Jewish Telegraphic Agency, Aug. 28, 1992.
28. It also offered a critique of the Nuremberg trials which “astounded” those present in the courtroom (Jewish Telegraphic Agency, Apr. 19, 1991).
29. Wall Street Journal, Apr. 9, 1985.
30. “Morning Edition,” National Public Radio, December 1992.
31. Spotlight, June 1, 1992.
32. Ronald K. L. Collins, “Tort Case as Gag Device,” National Law Journal, June 15, 1992, p. 15.
33. Toronto Sun, Oct. 15, 1992; Jewish Telegraphic Agency, Nov. 16, 1992.
Appendix
1. Document No. NI-9912, cited in Technique, p. 18.
2. Ibid., p. 19.
3. Ibid., pp. 16, 165.
4. Robert Faurisson, Reply to Pierre Vidal-Naquet, quoted in Technique, p. 505.
5. “Deficiencies,” p. 38; Technique, p. 16.
6. Technique, p. 18.
7. Le Monde, Jan 16, 1979, p. 13; Technique, p. 429.
8. Technique, p. 165.
9. Ibid., p. 429.
10. Ibid.
11. Ibid.
12. Auschwitz State Museum (Panstwowe Muzeum Oswiecim [PMO], file BW 30/40, p. 100; Technique, pp. 430–32.
13. Technique, p. 503.
14. Ibid., p. 548.
15. Faurisson, Statement for the Defense, cited in Technique, p. 505.
16. Faurisson, “Reply to Pierre Vidal-Naquet, p. 78.
17. Technique, p. 554.
18. PMO file BW 30/28, p. 73, cited in Technique, p. 553.
19. PMO file BW 30/28, p. 68, cited in ibid., p. 555.
20. Technique, p. 554. When he discovered this document Pressac confronted Faurisson and told him that because of the many references to gas in the museum archives he no longer believed Faurisson’s thesis was valid.
21. Technique, p. 367.
22. Ibid., p. 432.
23. PMO file BW 30/25, p. 7, cited in Technique, p. 432.
24. Ibid., pp. 434, 438.
25. PMO file BW 30/25, p. 7, cited in Technique, pp. 367, 432.
26. BW 30/34, pp. 49, 50, cited in Technique, pp. 434, 438–39.
27. Technique, pp. 434, 436, 438–39.
28. Bauleitung drawing 252, PMO neg. no. 20943/181, reproduced in Technique, p. 512.
29. Bauleitung drawing 3764, PMO file BW 2/38, reproduced in Technique, p. 514.
30. March 29, 1944, Diary of Anne Frank: The Critical Edition (New York, 1989), p. 578 (hereafter cited as Diary of Anne Frank).
31. Gerrold van der Stroom, “The Diaries, Het Achterhuis and the Translations,” Diary of Anne Frank, pp. 59–61.
32. Ibid., p. 63.
33. New York Times Book Review, June 15, 1952; Congress Weekly, Nov. 13, 1950; National Jewish Post, June 30, 1952; David Barnouw, “The Play,” Diary of Anne Frank, p. 78.
34. New York Law Journal, Feb. 27, 1959 cited in Barnouw, “The Play,” p. 80.
35. New York Times, Nov. 27, 1966; Meyer Levin, The Obsession (New York, 1973), p. 262.
36. David Barnouw, “Attacks on the Authenticity of the Diary,” Diary of Anne Frank, p. 84.
37. Ibid., p. 84.
38. Ibid., pp. 84–89.
39. Teressa Hendry, “Was Anne Frank’s Diary a Hoax?” American Mercury (Summer 1967), reprinted in Myth of the Six Million, pp. 109–111.
40. Harwood, Did Six Million Really Die?, p. 19.
41. Hoax, p. 37.
42. Ditlieb Felderer, Anne Frank’s Diary—A Hoax? (Taby, Sweden, 1978). When the book was reprinted by the IHR the question mark was omitted from the title.
43. Dec. 6, 1943, Diary, pp. 424, 425.
44. Robert Faurisson, Le Journal d’Anne Frank est-il authentique? in Serge Thion, Vérité historique or vérité politique? (Paris, 1980), Barnouw, “Attacks on the Authenticity,” pp. 94–95.
45. Aug. 5, 1943, Diary of Anne Frank, p. 385.
46. Dec. 6, 1943, Ibid., p. 424.
47. Nov. 9, 1943, Ibid., p. 301.
48. Robert Faurisson, Het Dagboek van Anne Frank—een vervalsing (The diary of Anne Frank—a forgery) (Antwerp, 1985), p. 18, cited in Barnouw, p. 95.
49. Barnouw, “Attacks on the Authenticity,” p. 96.
50. Opinion of Federal Criminal Investigation Bureau, May 28, 1980; Hamburg, Landgericht, Romer/Geiss dossier, cited in Barnouw, “Attacks on the Authenticity,” pp. 97–98.
51. Barnouw, “Attacks on the Authenticity,” p. 99.
52. Der Spiegel, Oct. 6, 1980, cited in ibid., p. 98.
53. H. J. J. Hardy, “Document Examination and Handwriting Identification of the Text Known as the Diary of Anne Frank: Summary of Findings,” Diary of Anne Frank, p. 164.
FOOTNOTES
Chapter One
1* Buchanan’s statements were made as part of his defense of John Demjanjuk, a retired Cleveland auto worker accused of being Ivan the Terrible, notorious camp guard and a mass murderer at Treblinka. It is not Buchanan’s defense o
f Demjanjuk with which I take issue—it is his use of denial arguments to do so. Buchanan has consistently opposed any prosecution of Nazi war criminals.
2* It is ironic that Duke’s efforts to win the Republican presidential nomination were overshadowed by Buchanan, who had earlier advocated that the Republicans stop feeling guilty about their “exploitation” of the Willie Horton issue and instead take a “hard look at Duke’s portfolio of winning issues” (New Republic, October 15, 1990, p. 19).
3* His solution to unemployment would be to declare the employment of a female a “criminal offense.”
4* It is ironic that this internationally known professor should have become such a defender of Faurisson’s right to speak when he would have denied those same rights to proponents of America’s involvement in Vietnam. In American Power and the New Mandarins he wrote, “By accepting the presumption of legitimacy of debate on certain issues, one has already lost one’s humanity.” Though written long before the Faurisson affair, his comments constitute the most accurate assessment of his own behavior.
5* Chomsky’s behavior can be contrasted with that of thirty-four of France’s leading historians who, in response to Faurisson’s efforts, issued a declaration protesting his attempt to deny the Holocaust. The declaration read in part: “Everyone is free to interpret a phenomenon like the Hitlerite genocide according to his own philosophy. Everyone is free to compare it with other enterprises of murder committed earlier, at the same time, later. Everyone is free to offer such or such kind of explanations; everyone is free, to the limit, to imagine or to dream that these monstrous deeds did not take place. Unfortunately, they did take place and no one can deny their existence without committing an outrage on the truth. It is not necessary to ask how technically such mass murder was possible. It was technically possible, seeing that it took place. That is the required point of departure of every historical inquiry on this subject. This truth it behooves us to remember in simple terms: there is not and there cannot be a debate about the existence of the gas chambers.” The full text of the declaration appeared in Le Monde, February 21, 1979.
6* In an apparent emulation of the deniers, a small group of Americans, led by a woman in California, Lillian Baker, has made the same claims about the World War II Japanese concentration camps in the United States. Manzanar, the infamous concentration camp for Japanese Americans, contained only “voluntary visitors.” They were treated royally, given every amenity, and had “all they could eat at our government’s expense.” Like the Jews, Baker and her group claim, the contemporary Japanese Americans who foster this hoax have a rationale for doing so—to divert attention from their community’s complicity with Japan during the war (Los Angeles Times, August 28 and December 6, 1991).
7* Robert Lifton expressed similar ambivalences about the potential impact of his research on doctors who participated in the Nazi killing system. He feared that his explanation would sound as if he were condoning or rationalizing their actions (Lifton, The Nazi Doctors: Medical Killing and the Psychology of Genocide [New York, 1986], pp. xi-xii).
Chapter Two
1* Lindbergh’s best-known and most controversial statement during this period was made in September 1941 at an America First rally in Des Moines, Iowa. In a speech entitled “Who Are the War Agitators?” he told eight thousand people that the “three most important groups who have been pressing this country toward war are the British, the Jewish and the Roosevelt Administration. . . . If any one of these groups—the British, the Jewish, or the Administration—stops agitating for war . . . [there would] be little danger of our involvement.”
2* In 1977, denier James Martin described Morgenthau’s plan as an example of running postwar Germany “according to the Old Testament instead of the New.” He claimed the plan had been implemented and resulted in the German population transfers, which he called the “most barbarous event of the history of Europe. . . . It is rare that one ever sees an animal forced to endure under such degraded and forlorn circumstances.” Martin, a member of the Journal of Historical Review’s editorial board, is listed as a contributor to the 1970 Encyclopedia Britannica. James J. Martin, The Saga of Hog Island and Other Essays in Inconvenient History (Colorado Springs, 1977), p. 193.
Chapter Three
1* The Einsatzgruppen were the special mobile killing units that conducted the massacres of Soviet Jewry immediately after the Germans declared war on the USSR.
2* The section on the USSR appears as follows:
Prewar Jewish Population,
1939
Postwar Jewish Population,
1945
USSR
3,020,000
2,600,000
Estonia
4,500
Latvia
95,000
Lithuania
145,000
Total:
3,264,500
2,600,000
Note: The postwar USSR total includes 300,000 deportees, refugees, and survivors from other territories.
When the three hundred thousand deportees, refugees, and survivors are deducted from the 2.6 million the total corresponds to a loss of 1 million Jews in the USSR.
3* Author’s note: Hitler changed the date of his original speech threatening the Jews with annihilation from January 30, 1939, to September 1, 1939.
Chapter Four
1* American Jewish organizations have traditionally opposed such a question because they believe it would violate the constitutional guarantee of the separation of church and state.
2* The editor of the Journal of Historical Review was clearly distressed by the ambiguity of this statement, which could be interpreted to suggest that Barnes believed that there might have actually been “gas ovens” in Auschwitz. When the Journal reprinted the article in 1980 the editor added a footnote to Barnes’s comment about the gas ovens: “Of course Barnes is confused here by the difference between a ‘gas chamber’ and a ‘gas oven.’ Shortly after writing this article, he came to reject the entire holocaust myth, not just part of it.”
3* This is what they have done in relation to the charge that Nazis used Jewish cadavers for the production of soap. When scholars of the Holocaust corrected this notion, the deniers were quick to charge they did so in order to avoid being exposed as willful liars. (See chapter 10.)
4* The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) was a favorite target of the revisionists. In a confidential report written in 1944 John Flynn cited the ADL as one of the groups responsible for a program to silence isolationists and “destroy the[ir] reputations” by intimidating them and anyone who might be influenced by them. In 1947 the Chicago Tribune ran a series of five articles by Flynn making these allegations (Wayne S. Cole, Roosevelt and the Isolationists, 1932–1945 [Lincoln, Nebr.]).
5* Villard admonished Barnes about making these claims: “I do not think for a moment that you need lay this to the Jews. [Vansittart] is a hard, aggressive fighter as his books have shown and when he chose Nizer as his counsel he picked the man who got a $100,000 verdict against Victor Ridder, which the judge cut to $50,000. Englishmen are very sensitive about libels. . . . I don’t believe he needed the slightest prodding from anybody.”
6* Students at Harvard and Columbia have told me that they had no idea he was writing in this fashion when they were using his books.
Chapter Five
1* This argument was used by the deniers until the Soviets adopted a sharp anti-Zionist policy. It then became difficult to claim the existence of a Zionist-Soviet plot, and the deniers stopped repeating this argument.
2* This was not the only time App relied on biblical themes to depict Jews. In 1948 he called for the reeducation of Jews “away from their eye for an eyeism.” (App, Morgenthau Era Letters, p. 73.)
3* All these assertions are absolutely false. Israel has opened its archives to all credible scholars and students working in this field.
4* A “page of testimony” at Yad Vashem consists of the name and birthdate of the victim as well
as additional biographical information. It is usually filled out by a surviving relative, friend, or neighbor. Obviously many people died and did not leave behind any relatives or neighbors who could perform this task of memorializing their name.
Chapter Six
1* For example, both the American and the British authors describe Eichmann’s assistant as “a nervous wreck and addicted to uncontrollable fits of sobbing for hours” (pp. 46, 11). In addition, Dr. M. Nyiszli, the author of Doctor at Auschwitz, is described in the American and the British versions as “apparently a mythical and invented figure” (pp. 118, 20). Nyiszli was a Jewish doctor who worked under the infamous Dr. Josef Mengele as a pathologist. His role is well established in documents and testimonies. There are numerous other examples of “shared” citations and paraphrasing. See, for example, the section on the International Committee of the Red Cross, “Letters of thanks which came pouring in from Jewish internees.” (pp. 99, 25). Compare also p. 98 with p. 24 and p. 101 with p. 25.
2* Scholars debate at what point in 1941 the Nazis decided to murder all the Jews in their sphere of influence. The prospect of having many millions of Jews, including those in the Soviet Union, under their rule when they overran that country led them to conclude that murder was the only “efficient” means of dealing with the Jewish “problem.” Intentionalists argue that the Nazis intended from the outset to eventually murder the Jews and that there was a high degree of consistency and orderly sequence in the Final Solution. Functionalists believe that there was no blueprint for the murder of the Jews but that the annihilation program was initially a means for the Nazis to emerge from a blind alley into which they had maneuvered themselves. Functionalists argue that in its first stages the murder program was improvised, and it proceeded in a haphazard fashion.