What do you think?
Rate this book
Denying the Holocaust: The Growing Assault on Truth and Memory
The denial of the Holocaust has no more credibility than the assertion that the earth is flat. Yet there are those who insist that the death of six million Jews in Nazi concentration camps is nothing but a hoax perpetrated by a powerful Zionist conspiracy.
Forty years ago, such notions were the province of pseudohistorians who argued that Hitler never meant to kill the Jews, and that only a few hundred thousand died in the camps from disease; they also argued that the Allied bombings of Dresden and other cities were worse than any Nazi offense, and that the Germans were the "true victims" of World War II. For years, those who made such claims were dismissed as harmless cranks operating on the lunatic fringe.
But over the past decade they have begun to gain a hearing in respectable arenas, and now, in the first full-scale history of Holocaust denial, Deborah Lipstadt shows how - despite tens of thousands of living witnesses and vast amounts of documentary evidence - this irrational idea not only has continued to gain adherents but has become an international movement, with organized chapters, "independent" research centers, and official publications that promote a "revisionist" view of recent history.
One sign of the movement's disturbing resonance is the rise of such figures as the Holocaust denier David Duke to national prominence. Holocaust deniers have also begun to make common cause with radical Afrocentrists such as Leonard Jeffries of New York's City University, who retells racist myths about the Jews; and a recent campaign of ads in college newspapers calling for "open debate" on "so-called facts" about the Holocaust suggests a bold new bid for mainstream intellectual legitimacy.
Lipstadt shows how Holocaust denial thrives in the current atmosphere of value relativism, and argues that this chilling attack on the factual record not only threatens Jews but undermines the very tenets of objective scholarship that support our faith in historical knowledge.
Forty years ago, such notions were the province of pseudohistorians who argued that Hitler never meant to kill the Jews, and that only a few hundred thousand died in the camps from disease; they also argued that the Allied bombings of Dresden and other cities were worse than any Nazi offense, and that the Germans were the "true victims" of World War II. For years, those who made such claims were dismissed as harmless cranks operating on the lunatic fringe.
But over the past decade they have begun to gain a hearing in respectable arenas, and now, in the first full-scale history of Holocaust denial, Deborah Lipstadt shows how - despite tens of thousands of living witnesses and vast amounts of documentary evidence - this irrational idea not only has continued to gain adherents but has become an international movement, with organized chapters, "independent" research centers, and official publications that promote a "revisionist" view of recent history.
One sign of the movement's disturbing resonance is the rise of such figures as the Holocaust denier David Duke to national prominence. Holocaust deniers have also begun to make common cause with radical Afrocentrists such as Leonard Jeffries of New York's City University, who retells racist myths about the Jews; and a recent campaign of ads in college newspapers calling for "open debate" on "so-called facts" about the Holocaust suggests a bold new bid for mainstream intellectual legitimacy.
Lipstadt shows how Holocaust denial thrives in the current atmosphere of value relativism, and argues that this chilling attack on the factual record not only threatens Jews but undermines the very tenets of objective scholarship that support our faith in historical knowledge.
304 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1993
About the author
Deborah E. Lipstadt
17 books221 followersDeborah E. Lipstadt, Dorot Professor of Modern Jewish History and Holocaust Studies (1993), Tam Institute for Jewish Studies and the Department of Religion. Lipstadt was an historical consultant to the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, and helped design the section of the Museum dedicated to the American Response to the Holocaust.
At Emory she created the Institute for Jewish Studies and was its first director from 1998-2008. She directs the website known as HDOT [Holocaust Denial on Trial/ www.hdot.org] which, in addition to cataloging legal and evidentiary materials from David Irving v. Penguin Books and Deborah Lipstadt, contains answers to frequent claims made by deniers. This section, Myths and Facts, received a grant from the Conference for Material Claims against Germany for the translation of the site into Arabic, Farsi, Russian, and Turkish. The site is frequently accessed in cities throughout Iran. Its seventh most visited country is Saudi Arabia.
Her book History on Trial: My Day in Court with a Holocaust Denier (Ecco/HarperCollins, 2006) is the story of her libel trial in London against David Irving who sued her for calling him a Holocaust denier and right wing extremist. The book won the 2006 National Jewish Book Award and was first runner up for the Koret Award. It received starred reviews from both Publishers Weekly and Kirkus Reviews. The latter called it a “fascinating and meritorious work of legal-and moral-history.” The editors at Amazon.com listed it as the fourth best non-fiction history book of 2005. The book has been optioned for a movie by Participant Pictures and BBC Films and is currently in active development.
Her book Denying the Holocaust: The Growing Assault on Truth and Memory (Free Press/Macmillan, 1993) is the first full length study of those who attempt to deny the Holocaust. It was the subject of simultaneous front page reviews in The New York Times and The Washington Post.
Lipstadt also opposes intermarriage between Jews and Gentiles; Ellen Jaffe McClain, in her Embracing the Stranger: Intermarriage and the Future of the American Jewish Community (Basic Books, 1995), p.18, writes: “Although people like Deborah Lipstadt, the Emory University professor who has written and lectured widely on Holocaust denial, have exhorted Jewish parents to just say no to intermarriage, much the way they expect their children not to take drugs, a large majority of parents (and more than a few rabbis) are unable to lay down opposition to intermarriage as a strict operating principle.”
At Emory she created the Institute for Jewish Studies and was its first director from 1998-2008. She directs the website known as HDOT [Holocaust Denial on Trial/ www.hdot.org] which, in addition to cataloging legal and evidentiary materials from David Irving v. Penguin Books and Deborah Lipstadt, contains answers to frequent claims made by deniers. This section, Myths and Facts, received a grant from the Conference for Material Claims against Germany for the translation of the site into Arabic, Farsi, Russian, and Turkish. The site is frequently accessed in cities throughout Iran. Its seventh most visited country is Saudi Arabia.
Her book History on Trial: My Day in Court with a Holocaust Denier (Ecco/HarperCollins, 2006) is the story of her libel trial in London against David Irving who sued her for calling him a Holocaust denier and right wing extremist. The book won the 2006 National Jewish Book Award and was first runner up for the Koret Award. It received starred reviews from both Publishers Weekly and Kirkus Reviews. The latter called it a “fascinating and meritorious work of legal-and moral-history.” The editors at Amazon.com listed it as the fourth best non-fiction history book of 2005. The book has been optioned for a movie by Participant Pictures and BBC Films and is currently in active development.
Her book Denying the Holocaust: The Growing Assault on Truth and Memory (Free Press/Macmillan, 1993) is the first full length study of those who attempt to deny the Holocaust. It was the subject of simultaneous front page reviews in The New York Times and The Washington Post.
Lipstadt also opposes intermarriage between Jews and Gentiles; Ellen Jaffe McClain, in her Embracing the Stranger: Intermarriage and the Future of the American Jewish Community (Basic Books, 1995), p.18, writes: “Although people like Deborah Lipstadt, the Emory University professor who has written and lectured widely on Holocaust denial, have exhorted Jewish parents to just say no to intermarriage, much the way they expect their children not to take drugs, a large majority of parents (and more than a few rabbis) are unable to lay down opposition to intermarriage as a strict operating principle.”
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 103 reviews
February 10, 2017
Update
Just seen the film of the trial of the book (Denial) and it was pretty good. A word of explanation for anyone who doesn’t know – Deborah Lipstadt's excellent book trashes the Hitler-loving anti-Semitic David Irving. It was published in 1993, and in 1996 Irving sued Penguin Books and the author for libel. It was a huge case and this is the film of the events surrounding the court proceedings, all of which is fascinating. There is a problem with making such a film though – it bites off way more than any film could chew, so Holocaust denial is simplified into three or four bullet points which looks a lot like terrible dumbing-down, but I don’t see that could be avoided. Most of the issues dealt with in the real trial don’t get a look in but if you make this movie that is going to happen. The main issue centred on whether Irving had deliberately falsified information in his books in order to deny that gassings of Jews happened at Auschwitz. And, of course, he had.
Such a strange thing to do – why would you bother? Suppose, just for a moment, that he was correct, and Auschwitz was only a concentration camp and never an extermination facility – would he have then denied the existence of Sobibor, Treblinka and Belzec, the extermination-only camps? Would he have denied the work of the Einsatzgruppen in Eastern Europe and Russia? Picking away at the gassings at Auschwitz seems useless and pointless, but that is what the slimebag did.
Anyway, I do recommend the film but I’m not sure what anyone who didn’t know the subject of Holocaust denial reasonably well would make of it.
***
From The Drowned and the Saved by Primo Levi. In this brilliant passage, Primo Levi anticipates the success of Holocaust denial. Somewhere in a concentration camp in 1943 a Nazi addresses a Jew:
However this war may end, we have won the war against you. None of you will be left to bear witness, but even if someone were to survive, the world would not believe him. There will be perhaps suspicions, discussions, research by historians, but there will be no certainties, because we will destroy the evidence together with you. And even if some proof should remain and some of you survive, people will say that the events you describe are too monstrous to be believed – they will say they are the exaggerations of Allied propaganda and will believe us, who will deny everything, and not you.
Deborah Lipstadt nails the insidiousness of holocaust denial really well in her introduction. She recounts walking off a TV show which was discussing holocaust denial because they had a Nation of Islam guy on the show who was explicitly denying the holocaust. DL told them she couldn't appear with a denier. But we wanted people to hear a balance of views, the TV producer said. You should present your side of the story and he should be allowed to present his side.
In the days when Donald Trump's press secretary refers to such things as "alternative facts" it's worth saying that a fact is a fact.
Holocaust denial uses two main types of argument - in the first type, fanboys of Hitler say that whilst the Holocaust may have happened Hitler himself never ordered it - in fact wasn't aware of it. It was all the work of Heydrich and Himmler, those two over-enthusiastic idealists. The second type of argument says that all these deaths, these mountains of corpses we see in the atrocity photos, were caused by epidemics which raged through the camps in the months before liberation. There was no deliberate extermination. No, all the camps were work camps, whose regimes were admittedly harsh, but no harsher than those in the Soviet gulag.
The deniers then accuse anyone denying their denial of Zionism, siding with the Jews against the Palestinians; and this insidious strand of argument has been unfortunately successful in some quarters of the European Left which has seen - for example - the usual leftist protesters against the latest Western invasion of a Muslim country making common cause with Islamist groups who are explicit Holocaust deniers.
What a tangled web it all is. Lipstadt's book was written before 9/11 and therefore takes little notice of jihadi Holocaust denial - her book is mostly a pageant of far-right American screwballs, the political tin foil hat brigade. They're deeply unpleasant but they aren't the ones spreading the poison into current generations.
Still, it's a very interesting read and recommended for those who enjoy a creepy political freak show.
Just seen the film of the trial of the book (Denial) and it was pretty good. A word of explanation for anyone who doesn’t know – Deborah Lipstadt's excellent book trashes the Hitler-loving anti-Semitic David Irving. It was published in 1993, and in 1996 Irving sued Penguin Books and the author for libel. It was a huge case and this is the film of the events surrounding the court proceedings, all of which is fascinating. There is a problem with making such a film though – it bites off way more than any film could chew, so Holocaust denial is simplified into three or four bullet points which looks a lot like terrible dumbing-down, but I don’t see that could be avoided. Most of the issues dealt with in the real trial don’t get a look in but if you make this movie that is going to happen. The main issue centred on whether Irving had deliberately falsified information in his books in order to deny that gassings of Jews happened at Auschwitz. And, of course, he had.
Such a strange thing to do – why would you bother? Suppose, just for a moment, that he was correct, and Auschwitz was only a concentration camp and never an extermination facility – would he have then denied the existence of Sobibor, Treblinka and Belzec, the extermination-only camps? Would he have denied the work of the Einsatzgruppen in Eastern Europe and Russia? Picking away at the gassings at Auschwitz seems useless and pointless, but that is what the slimebag did.
Anyway, I do recommend the film but I’m not sure what anyone who didn’t know the subject of Holocaust denial reasonably well would make of it.
***
From The Drowned and the Saved by Primo Levi. In this brilliant passage, Primo Levi anticipates the success of Holocaust denial. Somewhere in a concentration camp in 1943 a Nazi addresses a Jew:
However this war may end, we have won the war against you. None of you will be left to bear witness, but even if someone were to survive, the world would not believe him. There will be perhaps suspicions, discussions, research by historians, but there will be no certainties, because we will destroy the evidence together with you. And even if some proof should remain and some of you survive, people will say that the events you describe are too monstrous to be believed – they will say they are the exaggerations of Allied propaganda and will believe us, who will deny everything, and not you.
Deborah Lipstadt nails the insidiousness of holocaust denial really well in her introduction. She recounts walking off a TV show which was discussing holocaust denial because they had a Nation of Islam guy on the show who was explicitly denying the holocaust. DL told them she couldn't appear with a denier. But we wanted people to hear a balance of views, the TV producer said. You should present your side of the story and he should be allowed to present his side.
In the days when Donald Trump's press secretary refers to such things as "alternative facts" it's worth saying that a fact is a fact.
Holocaust denial uses two main types of argument - in the first type, fanboys of Hitler say that whilst the Holocaust may have happened Hitler himself never ordered it - in fact wasn't aware of it. It was all the work of Heydrich and Himmler, those two over-enthusiastic idealists. The second type of argument says that all these deaths, these mountains of corpses we see in the atrocity photos, were caused by epidemics which raged through the camps in the months before liberation. There was no deliberate extermination. No, all the camps were work camps, whose regimes were admittedly harsh, but no harsher than those in the Soviet gulag.
The deniers then accuse anyone denying their denial of Zionism, siding with the Jews against the Palestinians; and this insidious strand of argument has been unfortunately successful in some quarters of the European Left which has seen - for example - the usual leftist protesters against the latest Western invasion of a Muslim country making common cause with Islamist groups who are explicit Holocaust deniers.
What a tangled web it all is. Lipstadt's book was written before 9/11 and therefore takes little notice of jihadi Holocaust denial - her book is mostly a pageant of far-right American screwballs, the political tin foil hat brigade. They're deeply unpleasant but they aren't the ones spreading the poison into current generations.
Still, it's a very interesting read and recommended for those who enjoy a creepy political freak show.
September 1, 2015
Denying the Holocaust is a thorough exploration of the rise and development Holocaust denial. Lipstadt's book examines the evolution of Holocaust denial from its immediate post-war origins to the rise of a modern denial "movement", along with an examination of the most famous and influential deniers and their claims. This is a fascinating story, which begins with early instances of Holocaust denial as espoused by historians such as Harry Elmer Barnes and Austin J. App, to the development of entire organizations devoted to denying the Holocaust, such as the U.S. based Institute for Historical Review, considered by many to be the mecca for Holocaust deniers world-wide. The Institute even has its own publishing house, the Noontide Press, which publishes books and pamphlets denying the Holocaust along with classic antisemitic texts such as The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
Holocaust deniers agree on a number of points - Nazi Germany did not systematically exterminate Jews during World War 2 and there was no mass murder in extermination camps and gas chambers, and the number of Jews killed during the War is significantly lower than the accepted figures - but Holocaust denial is rarely an isolated phenomenon; rather, deniers engage in it as a part of apologia for Nazi Germany in general and Adolf Hitler in particular. Common claims include Germany being provoked into war by Britain, France and sometimes America, invasions of countries as a necessity to protect their persecuted German minorities, or even being forced to react militarily against aggressive and threatening Poland; in this world, everyone is out to destroy Germany, with Hitler acting as a statesman devoted to protect his country, resorting to conflict only after all of his patient diplomatic efforts at maintaining peace have failed. Although Holocaust denial is central to Nazi apologetics, it is rarely the only part of it - I believe that it would prove very difficult to find a person who would deny that a Nazi genocide of Jews has taken place, but at the same time acknowledge antisemitism, totalitarianism, hegemonic imperialism and war crimes of Nazi Germany.
Holocaust deniers and Nazi apologists either ignore historical evidence which does not fit their already made conclusions, or twist it to conform to their view of the world. Such is the case of David Irving, a British author of many books on World War II, once celebrated for his talent of unearthing new historical documents, now notorious and reduced to speaking at far-right gatherings and private lectures. Although Lipstadt is heavily critical of Irving's practices and names him "the most dangerous spokespersons for Holocaust denial", her book is by no means focused on him or his work - he is just one of the many figures which she correctly associated with denying the Holocaust. Nonetheless, Irving sued Lipstadt for libel in 2000 - and in English law the burden of proof is on the defendant, which meant that Lipstadt had to prove that Irving is a Holocaust denier and an apologist for Hitler who has manipulated evidence to suit his needs.
Irving lost the case spectacularly - British historian, Richard J. Evans, examined his published work thoroughly, and found that Irving has knowingly manipulated and distorted real documents and used forgeries as sources, concluding that none of his writing or lectures can be trusted as an accurate description of historical events, and that Irving himself could not be trusted as a historian. The Irving Trial is the most famous case of a Holocaust denier - even more so because it was Irving who sued and had all the possibilities of proving the truth of the "truth" about the Holocaust in a court of law, but ended up being exposed as a fraud and racist.
Although the subject is interesting and Lipstadt does a good job at presenting it, there are elements in the book which are troubling and spoil it. First of all, there is not a word in it about the non-Jewish victims of the Holocaust - Soviet POWs, Ethnic Poles, Belorussians, Ukrainians, and others - communists, homosexuals, and the disabled. Are they not part of the same tragedy which befell the Jews, and not worthy of the same attention and commemoration? How much of Holocaust studies focuses on these victims? Hitler's famous speech at his Obersalzberg residence, delivered on the 22nd of August 1939, is the one where he openly calls for ruthless extermination of an entire people - physical destruction of men, women and children, without mercy and compassion, using the Armenian genocide as an example. This speech is often used as proof of Hitler's familiarity with genocide, and his intention to carry one out during the war. But how many people know that this speech calls for genocide not of Jews, but of Poles?
At another point Lipstadt dismisses comparisons of Nazism with Stalinism; she states that Stalin's campaign of terror was "arbitrary", whereas Hitler's was targeted at "a particular group", and goes on to say that while Hitler's Germany targeted every single Jew, "no citizen of the Soviet Union assumed that deportation and death were inevitable consequences of his or her ethnic origins". This is simply not true, as in the Soviet Union entire nationalities were deported precisely because of their ethnicity. In 1937, all ethnic Koreans were deported from the Russian Far East to unpopulated areas of Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan. The official reason for this mass deportation was to prevent Japanese espionage in the Soviet Union (at the time Korea was under Japanese rule). In 1917, the Soviet Union began what would be known as "Decossackization" - a process aimed to eliminate the Kuban and Don Cossacks as distinctive ethnic group, as they were perceived to be collectively hostile to the new regime. This is the first example of the Soviet Union targeting an entire population of people with the full intent of ultimately exterminating it - and it happened long before Hitler, or even Stalin, came to power.
During the Great Purge, the Soviet NKVD carried out a series of what would be known as the National Operations, where the Soviet government explicitly targeted entire populations purely on ethnic grounds. Deportation of Koreans was one of them, but another one which has to be mentioned is the Polish Operation. Conducted between 1937 and 1938, it targeted ethnic Poles living in the Soviet Union, and accused them of sabotage and spying for the Polish government. Their social class did not matter; they were targeted and killed because they were Polish. Although official orders called for arrest of Polish "spies", it was openly acknowledged by the NKVD as an order to exterminate all Poles and even those who were perceived to be Polish. The operation was carried out as such without any judicial trial whatsoever - to fill in large arrest quotas, the NKVD resorted to the crudest of methods: one example was to use phone books to find and lock up people with Polish names. Men were summarily shot, and their wives and mothers were deported to labor camps in Kazakhstan and Siberia. Their children were taken by state orphanages to be brought up as Soviet citizens, deliberately severing any connection to their Polish origins. All possessions of the accused were confiscated, purposefully leaving nothing for their parents and in-laws, which ultimately left them to perish as well. Stalin openly encouraged the NKVD to keep digging and "cleaning out this Polish filth". It is estimated by official Soviet records that more than 139,000 people have been sentenced, out of whom approximately 111,000 were executed, five times more than in the Katyn massacre. Is this "arbitrary terror"?
It also has to be noted that while Jews were persecuted in Germany after Adolf Hitler's rise to power - beginning with boycott of Jewish businesses to ultimately stripping them from their legal rights - Nazi Germany began the mass killing of Jews after invading Poland and subsequently the Soviet Union, with the long decision process regarding the Final Solution culminating at the infamous conference in the Berlin suburb of Wannsee in 1942. In comparison, Stalin undertook his Great Terror in peacetime, with entire populations being targeted specifically on ethnic and national grounds, leaving the British historian Timothy Snyder to conclude that "it was Stalin, not Hitler, who initiated the first ethnic killing campaigns in interwar Europe".
While I do not want to suggest that ms. Lipstadt does not have compassion and empathy for other victims of other genocides, her sharp dismissal of them is crude and ill-considered; a historian should truly know better. Acknowledging and remembering these victims does not take anything away from the enormity of Jewish suffering; glossing them over or completely disregarding them strips them of their dignity, memory and historical importance.
Last, but not least - the book was first published in 1993, and to the best of my knowledge has not been revised since. It does not cover the development of antisemitism and Holocaust denial outside Europe and North America - a 2014 study by the Anti-Defamation League found that the majority of Holocaust deniers live in the Middle East and North Africa, with antisemitic attitudes being most prevalent in that region. Also, because of its publication date, Denying the Holocaust completely omits the role that the internet plays in Holocaust denial - the rise and development of internet communities such as Stormfront, which gather Holocaust deniers and white supremacists from all over the world. Video and audio materials focused on denying the Holocaust are easier to spread than ever, and so is denial itself (anyone who has ever watched a YouTube video focused on Germany in World War 2 will understand it immediately after reading the comments). Although the book does much well, there is also much to improve and add to it - though unfortunately I don't know if it'll ever see a new edition.
Holocaust deniers agree on a number of points - Nazi Germany did not systematically exterminate Jews during World War 2 and there was no mass murder in extermination camps and gas chambers, and the number of Jews killed during the War is significantly lower than the accepted figures - but Holocaust denial is rarely an isolated phenomenon; rather, deniers engage in it as a part of apologia for Nazi Germany in general and Adolf Hitler in particular. Common claims include Germany being provoked into war by Britain, France and sometimes America, invasions of countries as a necessity to protect their persecuted German minorities, or even being forced to react militarily against aggressive and threatening Poland; in this world, everyone is out to destroy Germany, with Hitler acting as a statesman devoted to protect his country, resorting to conflict only after all of his patient diplomatic efforts at maintaining peace have failed. Although Holocaust denial is central to Nazi apologetics, it is rarely the only part of it - I believe that it would prove very difficult to find a person who would deny that a Nazi genocide of Jews has taken place, but at the same time acknowledge antisemitism, totalitarianism, hegemonic imperialism and war crimes of Nazi Germany.
Holocaust deniers and Nazi apologists either ignore historical evidence which does not fit their already made conclusions, or twist it to conform to their view of the world. Such is the case of David Irving, a British author of many books on World War II, once celebrated for his talent of unearthing new historical documents, now notorious and reduced to speaking at far-right gatherings and private lectures. Although Lipstadt is heavily critical of Irving's practices and names him "the most dangerous spokespersons for Holocaust denial", her book is by no means focused on him or his work - he is just one of the many figures which she correctly associated with denying the Holocaust. Nonetheless, Irving sued Lipstadt for libel in 2000 - and in English law the burden of proof is on the defendant, which meant that Lipstadt had to prove that Irving is a Holocaust denier and an apologist for Hitler who has manipulated evidence to suit his needs.
Irving lost the case spectacularly - British historian, Richard J. Evans, examined his published work thoroughly, and found that Irving has knowingly manipulated and distorted real documents and used forgeries as sources, concluding that none of his writing or lectures can be trusted as an accurate description of historical events, and that Irving himself could not be trusted as a historian. The Irving Trial is the most famous case of a Holocaust denier - even more so because it was Irving who sued and had all the possibilities of proving the truth of the "truth" about the Holocaust in a court of law, but ended up being exposed as a fraud and racist.
Although the subject is interesting and Lipstadt does a good job at presenting it, there are elements in the book which are troubling and spoil it. First of all, there is not a word in it about the non-Jewish victims of the Holocaust - Soviet POWs, Ethnic Poles, Belorussians, Ukrainians, and others - communists, homosexuals, and the disabled. Are they not part of the same tragedy which befell the Jews, and not worthy of the same attention and commemoration? How much of Holocaust studies focuses on these victims? Hitler's famous speech at his Obersalzberg residence, delivered on the 22nd of August 1939, is the one where he openly calls for ruthless extermination of an entire people - physical destruction of men, women and children, without mercy and compassion, using the Armenian genocide as an example. This speech is often used as proof of Hitler's familiarity with genocide, and his intention to carry one out during the war. But how many people know that this speech calls for genocide not of Jews, but of Poles?
At another point Lipstadt dismisses comparisons of Nazism with Stalinism; she states that Stalin's campaign of terror was "arbitrary", whereas Hitler's was targeted at "a particular group", and goes on to say that while Hitler's Germany targeted every single Jew, "no citizen of the Soviet Union assumed that deportation and death were inevitable consequences of his or her ethnic origins". This is simply not true, as in the Soviet Union entire nationalities were deported precisely because of their ethnicity. In 1937, all ethnic Koreans were deported from the Russian Far East to unpopulated areas of Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan. The official reason for this mass deportation was to prevent Japanese espionage in the Soviet Union (at the time Korea was under Japanese rule). In 1917, the Soviet Union began what would be known as "Decossackization" - a process aimed to eliminate the Kuban and Don Cossacks as distinctive ethnic group, as they were perceived to be collectively hostile to the new regime. This is the first example of the Soviet Union targeting an entire population of people with the full intent of ultimately exterminating it - and it happened long before Hitler, or even Stalin, came to power.
During the Great Purge, the Soviet NKVD carried out a series of what would be known as the National Operations, where the Soviet government explicitly targeted entire populations purely on ethnic grounds. Deportation of Koreans was one of them, but another one which has to be mentioned is the Polish Operation. Conducted between 1937 and 1938, it targeted ethnic Poles living in the Soviet Union, and accused them of sabotage and spying for the Polish government. Their social class did not matter; they were targeted and killed because they were Polish. Although official orders called for arrest of Polish "spies", it was openly acknowledged by the NKVD as an order to exterminate all Poles and even those who were perceived to be Polish. The operation was carried out as such without any judicial trial whatsoever - to fill in large arrest quotas, the NKVD resorted to the crudest of methods: one example was to use phone books to find and lock up people with Polish names. Men were summarily shot, and their wives and mothers were deported to labor camps in Kazakhstan and Siberia. Their children were taken by state orphanages to be brought up as Soviet citizens, deliberately severing any connection to their Polish origins. All possessions of the accused were confiscated, purposefully leaving nothing for their parents and in-laws, which ultimately left them to perish as well. Stalin openly encouraged the NKVD to keep digging and "cleaning out this Polish filth". It is estimated by official Soviet records that more than 139,000 people have been sentenced, out of whom approximately 111,000 were executed, five times more than in the Katyn massacre. Is this "arbitrary terror"?
It also has to be noted that while Jews were persecuted in Germany after Adolf Hitler's rise to power - beginning with boycott of Jewish businesses to ultimately stripping them from their legal rights - Nazi Germany began the mass killing of Jews after invading Poland and subsequently the Soviet Union, with the long decision process regarding the Final Solution culminating at the infamous conference in the Berlin suburb of Wannsee in 1942. In comparison, Stalin undertook his Great Terror in peacetime, with entire populations being targeted specifically on ethnic and national grounds, leaving the British historian Timothy Snyder to conclude that "it was Stalin, not Hitler, who initiated the first ethnic killing campaigns in interwar Europe".
While I do not want to suggest that ms. Lipstadt does not have compassion and empathy for other victims of other genocides, her sharp dismissal of them is crude and ill-considered; a historian should truly know better. Acknowledging and remembering these victims does not take anything away from the enormity of Jewish suffering; glossing them over or completely disregarding them strips them of their dignity, memory and historical importance.
Last, but not least - the book was first published in 1993, and to the best of my knowledge has not been revised since. It does not cover the development of antisemitism and Holocaust denial outside Europe and North America - a 2014 study by the Anti-Defamation League found that the majority of Holocaust deniers live in the Middle East and North Africa, with antisemitic attitudes being most prevalent in that region. Also, because of its publication date, Denying the Holocaust completely omits the role that the internet plays in Holocaust denial - the rise and development of internet communities such as Stormfront, which gather Holocaust deniers and white supremacists from all over the world. Video and audio materials focused on denying the Holocaust are easier to spread than ever, and so is denial itself (anyone who has ever watched a YouTube video focused on Germany in World War 2 will understand it immediately after reading the comments). Although the book does much well, there is also much to improve and add to it - though unfortunately I don't know if it'll ever see a new edition.
March 13, 2021
The New York Times Book Review said of this book....Not only an exposé of the deniers' claims but a terrifying study of how hate can wear away what happened within living memory And so it is. This is a powerful book which illustrates that the deniers' debate is not a debate; their arguments are no arguments.
A Roper Poll, taken near the turn of the 21st century indicated that 13% of American said that the Holocaust may have happened and 4% said it did not. A follow up to those questions revealed that 38% of adults and 53% of high school students had little, to no, information about the details of the Holocaust or why it occurred. These rather appalling statistics provide fuel to the fire of the deniers.
The author describes the beginning of this denial, which got its first foothold in France which may have been a result of the Vichy mentality, and follows it through to the current era (although the book was published in the late 1990s). She particularly specifies those individuals who were in the forefront of the deniers, most of whom I did not know, except for George Lincoln Rockwell and Austin App. Some of the "facts" that these men put forward as proof that the Holocaust is a "fraud" are:
* The Allies, not Germany started WWII
* The Holocaust was an idea backed by "Zionists" or wealthy Jews.
* The death camps were only prisons, never death camps and were also used to protect Jews from the horrors of the war.
* The ovens, where millions died, were built after the war by the Allies to prove the lie of the Holocaust was true.
Their "facts' get more and more absurd and there is no need to repeat them here. But they still resonate with those people who believe them.
This book made me very angry and its contents are relevant to the current environment of racial/religious hatred. It is well documented, well written, and an important history that should be read. Recommended.
Never Again
A Roper Poll, taken near the turn of the 21st century indicated that 13% of American said that the Holocaust may have happened and 4% said it did not. A follow up to those questions revealed that 38% of adults and 53% of high school students had little, to no, information about the details of the Holocaust or why it occurred. These rather appalling statistics provide fuel to the fire of the deniers.
The author describes the beginning of this denial, which got its first foothold in France which may have been a result of the Vichy mentality, and follows it through to the current era (although the book was published in the late 1990s). She particularly specifies those individuals who were in the forefront of the deniers, most of whom I did not know, except for George Lincoln Rockwell and Austin App. Some of the "facts" that these men put forward as proof that the Holocaust is a "fraud" are:
* The Allies, not Germany started WWII
* The Holocaust was an idea backed by "Zionists" or wealthy Jews.
* The death camps were only prisons, never death camps and were also used to protect Jews from the horrors of the war.
* The ovens, where millions died, were built after the war by the Allies to prove the lie of the Holocaust was true.
Their "facts' get more and more absurd and there is no need to repeat them here. But they still resonate with those people who believe them.
This book made me very angry and its contents are relevant to the current environment of racial/religious hatred. It is well documented, well written, and an important history that should be read. Recommended.
Never Again
March 23, 2015
Deborah Lipstadt prefaces her exploration of Holocaust deniers with an important explanation of why she went ahead with the book, despite her reluctance to engage with deniers on any level. She had been asked to appear on several TV programs with Holocaust deniers, which she adamantly refused to do, knowing that there's nothing the deniers desire more than to be put on the same playing field with established historians, experts, and people telling the truth. If the deniers can portray their claims as "the other side of the debate," if they can get people even believing there is a debate about whether the Holocaust happened, they've accomplished their mission. TV producers would cajole her: "Don't you think it's fair that viewers hear both sides of the debate?" No. When opinions are relevant, when things are actually ideas, then debates are pretty harmless. When a fact exists, proven to be a fact by all known historical or scientific methods of establishing facthood and truth, any other "side" of that is not relevant. The rantings and insinuations of crazy people are not relevant to established history.
Lipstadt wrote her book because it was not a direct engagement with deniers, but a rebuttal of them, and because she was concerned by the number of students approaching her who had heard the deniers' claims, often not even knowing that the source of them was Holocaust deniers, and asking her what her response was. E.g., we heard someone saying Anne Frank's diary was a hoax - what's up with that? She was right to write the book. People need explanations, even when they already know what the truth is. They need to know why the deniers' claims are false. I find the 9/11 truthers a fascinating (and of course deeply delusional) group. I've watched a few of their videos. As much as I know they're crazy, it helps to know the scientific and engineering facts that explain how two skyscrapers could fall so quickly. After all, you are eventually going to run into one of these trolls somewhere, whether it's a family Thanksgiving dinner or an internet comment thread, and you need to have your facts marshalled so you can quickly render them idiots.
Most of the deniers' claims were the type that could be rebutted quickly by checking original sources and documents. They would pull statements and numbers out of context, massage numbers. They claimed that the Germans were only defending themselves against the Jews, their aggressors, based on Chaim Weizmann's 1939 statement that the Jews would support Britain and the democracies. One of the more fascinating deniers was Fred Leuchter, a man with a bachelor's degree in history who pretended to be, at various times, an engineer and expert in chemistry and materials science. Another denier had recruited Leuchter to go to Auschwitz/Birkenau and one other camp and obtain physical evidence to demonstrate that the gas chambers had not existed; any gas chambers were merely there to delouse clothing, not kill vast numbers of people. All of Leuchter's evidence was disproven. Leuchter also had a career as a purveyor of execution systems to American states, although he could hardly be called an expert. He hoodwinked The Atlantic magazine and Primetime Live, and was exposed for shaking down state penal departments that would not purchase his equipment or services.
Another interesting chapter described one denier's attempts to get an ad published in a slew of college and university newspapers in the early 1990s. Bradley Smith hoped to get his cause framed as a First Amendment issue, and in many cases he was not disappointed. He was able to muddy the waters and convince some confused business managers and editors to either print his ad, which was headed "The Holocaust Story: How Much is False?", or print his ad accompanied by an editorial explaining that while the newspaper found its assertions offensive, they had an obligation to air ugly or unpopular views. (In fact, there is no such obligation. "The courts have broadly defined [campus newspapers'] editorial discretion to accept or reject ads," writes Lipstadt. ) A 1999 ad from Smith that I just pulled up on the internet begins, "THERE IS NO LIBERTY WITHOUT FREE SPEECH AND OPEN DEBATE. "...the fanatic hides from true debate...He knows how to speak in monologues only, so debate is superfluous to him." (Elie Wiesel)" He then offers $250,000 to any individual who can arrange a debate between himself and the ADL (Anti-Defamation League).
A worthwhile book, although out of date by now.
September 21, 2013
Several months ago I have stumbled upon the biggest White Nationalism site in the internet. One of their agendas besides wanting to separate "white nations" from people of other races is the denial of Holocaust and claiming that it is all a conspiracy by the evil Jews who apparently control the world. I have heard about deniers before but never really got in touch with them. From that day I have visited this site almost on a daily basis trying to understand their reasoning and even tried to participate in the "Opposing view forum". Debating them is absolutely impossible. Besides using ad hominem attacks on the person's race (or accusing them of being Jews if they don't identify themselves) this group of people completely dismisses every argument presented including references to respectable scholars and evidence based on the "fact" that all scholars and media are controlled by Jews and therefore can't be taken seriously.
Then i found this book. And while it was published 20 years ago it is still very relevant to this topic. The only thing missing is the importance of the internet in the spreading of the hate propaganda these days (for the obvious reason, as the book was published before internet became mainstream and accessible to everyone). Everything else is greatly discussed in this book.
Lipstadt introduces us to the beginnings of the denial movement. Shows us many prominent figures involved in it as well as discusses the techniques used by them. We see them distorting information to their benefit, ignoring facts presented in the books they use that would go against them as well as using a lot of untestified myths. The book is very straight forward, easy to read, well organized and includes many references.
After finishing it out of curiosity i went to see what people who gave this book a negative review have to say. Luckily there are not many of it, unfortunately their "logic" makes one want to rip ones hair off based on stupidity. They use pretty much all the techniques she described in the book. Two of the main arguments opposing this book are the usual whining about freedom of speech and the second claiming that the book has no historical value but is simply based on emotions.
The freedom of speech argument is a very annoying one since people using it don't seem to grasp what freedom of speech is. Nowhere in the book does Lipstadt deny people this freedom. Actually in one of the paragraphs she specifically states that everyone should be allowed to voice their opinion. What she says is that we should look at how we handle this opinions. Her argument is that we should not give it the same benefit as legitimate history questioning. There is a difference between revisionism and denial. History is revisioned throughout time. There are new facts coming up, new ideas and it is a good thing. But it is one thing questioning specific details of Holocaust and a completely different thing to question if holocaust existed at all. This nonsense should be treated just as we would treat someone who claims there was no Roman Empire or that the Earth is flat. As a simple denial of well known facts. She has a great chapter in this book discussing this struggle with freedom of speech our society has and brings great examples on different universities reasoning on it while deciding whether to publish a hate ad in their papers or not.
The argument about her being emotional instead of presenting facts buffles me a bit considering that she uses hundreds of scholarly references and dissects denial arguments with actual facts.As in contrast to deniers who mainly use their opinion based on hatred, stereotypes and denial of facts.
This book is great for everyone who is interested in history and in the denial movement. Unfortunately it will do no good in deniers reading it because they have their mind set and are not interested in reasoning. I find this movement to be rather frightening especially now when anyone can get online and post anything he wants as a fact and spreading hate.
Then i found this book. And while it was published 20 years ago it is still very relevant to this topic. The only thing missing is the importance of the internet in the spreading of the hate propaganda these days (for the obvious reason, as the book was published before internet became mainstream and accessible to everyone). Everything else is greatly discussed in this book.
Lipstadt introduces us to the beginnings of the denial movement. Shows us many prominent figures involved in it as well as discusses the techniques used by them. We see them distorting information to their benefit, ignoring facts presented in the books they use that would go against them as well as using a lot of untestified myths. The book is very straight forward, easy to read, well organized and includes many references.
After finishing it out of curiosity i went to see what people who gave this book a negative review have to say. Luckily there are not many of it, unfortunately their "logic" makes one want to rip ones hair off based on stupidity. They use pretty much all the techniques she described in the book. Two of the main arguments opposing this book are the usual whining about freedom of speech and the second claiming that the book has no historical value but is simply based on emotions.
The freedom of speech argument is a very annoying one since people using it don't seem to grasp what freedom of speech is. Nowhere in the book does Lipstadt deny people this freedom. Actually in one of the paragraphs she specifically states that everyone should be allowed to voice their opinion. What she says is that we should look at how we handle this opinions. Her argument is that we should not give it the same benefit as legitimate history questioning. There is a difference between revisionism and denial. History is revisioned throughout time. There are new facts coming up, new ideas and it is a good thing. But it is one thing questioning specific details of Holocaust and a completely different thing to question if holocaust existed at all. This nonsense should be treated just as we would treat someone who claims there was no Roman Empire or that the Earth is flat. As a simple denial of well known facts. She has a great chapter in this book discussing this struggle with freedom of speech our society has and brings great examples on different universities reasoning on it while deciding whether to publish a hate ad in their papers or not.
The argument about her being emotional instead of presenting facts buffles me a bit considering that she uses hundreds of scholarly references and dissects denial arguments with actual facts.As in contrast to deniers who mainly use their opinion based on hatred, stereotypes and denial of facts.
This book is great for everyone who is interested in history and in the denial movement. Unfortunately it will do no good in deniers reading it because they have their mind set and are not interested in reasoning. I find this movement to be rather frightening especially now when anyone can get online and post anything he wants as a fact and spreading hate.
January 22, 2013
I first became aware some years ago that there are people who do not believe the Holocaust happened and ever since I have been meaning to read this book. It is fascinating and frightening reading and will make most people reconsider their stance on free speech. The author has a low key style of writing which makes what she has to say all the more impressive. It would be so easy to rant about people who seem to ignore facts in their attempts to rewrite history.
Holocaust denial it seems has been around since the end of World War II and has attracted supporters from many right wing movements who see it as grist to their own mill. Anyone who doesn’t conform to the WASP stereotype is not acceptable to these groups. Historians have always disagreed over their interpretations of historical events but mainly they do not disagree over whether these events actually happened. But there are people who claim that the Holocaust is a huge hoax perpetrated by the Jews and aided and abetted by the Allies to keep Germany in a state of guilt.
Deniers claim that all eye witness accounts of the concentration camps and the gas chambers are faked and that there were no mass killings of Jews or anyone else. Many people died – because of malnutrition towards the end of the war when the Allies had cut off German supply lines which meant that concentration camps did not receive food – that is their theory. Deniers go further than this by saying that all the documents in archives have been faked and people have been bribed to talk about their imaginary experiences so add verisimilitude to the hoax. I found myself laughing out loud at the idea that thousand and millions of people are involved in forging documents, placing them in archives ready to be found at a later date and writing fake memoirs.
Anyone who has told a secret in confidence to one other person knows that the more people you have who know about a secret then the less secret it is. Deniers have no problem ignoring evidence that does not fit their thesis. They even go so far as to say that all the defendants at the Nuremberg trials confessed to crimes they did not commit – because they were told they had to support the hoax. Many deniers start from a position of Anti-Semitism and also a belief in the Illuminati and the huge worldwide plot to have the world run by Jews with everyone else subjected to their cause. They fail to see that this scenario is very similar to their ideas that there should be a right wing dictatorship ruling the world.
What disturbed me most about this book was the way Holocaust deniers launch ad hominem attacks on anyone who does not agree with them. If you can’t argue your point using facts to back it up instead of saying everyone has been brainwashed who doesn’t agree with you then you really don’t have any rational way of explaining what you believe to be the truth. If the facts supporting the deniers’ contentions were so clear-cut then they would stand on their own merit.
I am all for free speech and the right to express your own point of view however distasteful but to dismiss all well documented facts which contradict your own thesis is not in the best traditions of scholarship. The right to free speech does not include the right to say that everyone who doesn’t accept what you say is stupid and has been brainwashed.
The book contains many references to the sources quoted which will provide further reading for anyone who wants to know more about this fascinating and though provoking subject. There is also an index.
Holocaust denial it seems has been around since the end of World War II and has attracted supporters from many right wing movements who see it as grist to their own mill. Anyone who doesn’t conform to the WASP stereotype is not acceptable to these groups. Historians have always disagreed over their interpretations of historical events but mainly they do not disagree over whether these events actually happened. But there are people who claim that the Holocaust is a huge hoax perpetrated by the Jews and aided and abetted by the Allies to keep Germany in a state of guilt.
Deniers claim that all eye witness accounts of the concentration camps and the gas chambers are faked and that there were no mass killings of Jews or anyone else. Many people died – because of malnutrition towards the end of the war when the Allies had cut off German supply lines which meant that concentration camps did not receive food – that is their theory. Deniers go further than this by saying that all the documents in archives have been faked and people have been bribed to talk about their imaginary experiences so add verisimilitude to the hoax. I found myself laughing out loud at the idea that thousand and millions of people are involved in forging documents, placing them in archives ready to be found at a later date and writing fake memoirs.
Anyone who has told a secret in confidence to one other person knows that the more people you have who know about a secret then the less secret it is. Deniers have no problem ignoring evidence that does not fit their thesis. They even go so far as to say that all the defendants at the Nuremberg trials confessed to crimes they did not commit – because they were told they had to support the hoax. Many deniers start from a position of Anti-Semitism and also a belief in the Illuminati and the huge worldwide plot to have the world run by Jews with everyone else subjected to their cause. They fail to see that this scenario is very similar to their ideas that there should be a right wing dictatorship ruling the world.
What disturbed me most about this book was the way Holocaust deniers launch ad hominem attacks on anyone who does not agree with them. If you can’t argue your point using facts to back it up instead of saying everyone has been brainwashed who doesn’t agree with you then you really don’t have any rational way of explaining what you believe to be the truth. If the facts supporting the deniers’ contentions were so clear-cut then they would stand on their own merit.
I am all for free speech and the right to express your own point of view however distasteful but to dismiss all well documented facts which contradict your own thesis is not in the best traditions of scholarship. The right to free speech does not include the right to say that everyone who doesn’t accept what you say is stupid and has been brainwashed.
The book contains many references to the sources quoted which will provide further reading for anyone who wants to know more about this fascinating and though provoking subject. There is also an index.
March 18, 2021
One of the interesting points Liptadt makes in this book is not so much the nature of Holocaust denial itself, but the inability of the media and public to distinguish between a debatable issue and one that lies beyond the parameters of reasoned discussion. This deficiency has worsened since the book first appeared in the early nineties.
The book is partly a history of the denial movement and the five or six men who got it going.. The pattern of denial Liptstadt traces shows the increasing sophistication of the movement, whose believers have gone from out-and-out anti-Semitism to an insidious skepticism, a sort of “who’s to say?” about the Holocaust that confuses journalists and the public into thinking the reality of the event is in doubt.
Most amusing, if it can be called that, is the pronounced breakdown of reasoning in the face of one tactic: taking out denial ads in college campus newspapers. Not just student, but academics and school presidents, became confused over the propriety of doing so, and the author recounts the way irrelevant and secondary considerations flummoxed the newspaper staff and editors. This is a useful paradigm for how reasoning breaks down over any conspiracy theory.
The book appeared before the Internet became the repository of such theories, but the author outlines the general way reason breaks down. What she could not have known was the power of the Internet to magnify bad reasoning. While she discusses the confusion among journalists on this issue, she also did not take into account the emergence of a mass media in which the propagation of false and sensationalist notions has in many cases become the whole point of journalism.
What to do about the elevation of false consciousness to the level of respectability has become the central problem society faces today. This author suggests that primary responsibility lies with academia -- the people who of all people know better. She points out a paradox: People get into the academic world in order to explore new horizons, not to fight battles over the basics. But this is something they have to do nonetheless.
While I like this book, the author tends to her points with repetitive examples. Perhaps this is necessary, but another small annoyance was the poor editing that gave the book the feel of a rush job. In addition, the advent of the Internet has dated the material. While I have to take points away for those faults, the fact remains that the book covers unique territory and the writing is good overall. I recommend the book because the problems it identifies have become so amplified by the direction mass culture has taken since Denying The Holocaust first came out.
The book is partly a history of the denial movement and the five or six men who got it going.. The pattern of denial Liptstadt traces shows the increasing sophistication of the movement, whose believers have gone from out-and-out anti-Semitism to an insidious skepticism, a sort of “who’s to say?” about the Holocaust that confuses journalists and the public into thinking the reality of the event is in doubt.
Most amusing, if it can be called that, is the pronounced breakdown of reasoning in the face of one tactic: taking out denial ads in college campus newspapers. Not just student, but academics and school presidents, became confused over the propriety of doing so, and the author recounts the way irrelevant and secondary considerations flummoxed the newspaper staff and editors. This is a useful paradigm for how reasoning breaks down over any conspiracy theory.
The book appeared before the Internet became the repository of such theories, but the author outlines the general way reason breaks down. What she could not have known was the power of the Internet to magnify bad reasoning. While she discusses the confusion among journalists on this issue, she also did not take into account the emergence of a mass media in which the propagation of false and sensationalist notions has in many cases become the whole point of journalism.
What to do about the elevation of false consciousness to the level of respectability has become the central problem society faces today. This author suggests that primary responsibility lies with academia -- the people who of all people know better. She points out a paradox: People get into the academic world in order to explore new horizons, not to fight battles over the basics. But this is something they have to do nonetheless.
While I like this book, the author tends to her points with repetitive examples. Perhaps this is necessary, but another small annoyance was the poor editing that gave the book the feel of a rush job. In addition, the advent of the Internet has dated the material. While I have to take points away for those faults, the fact remains that the book covers unique territory and the writing is good overall. I recommend the book because the problems it identifies have become so amplified by the direction mass culture has taken since Denying The Holocaust first came out.
June 1, 2018
Will reread
I would have read this faster if I didn't keep flipping back and forth to the notes.
I read this book because I was curious as to what on earth that there are actually people and/or movement that actually believe that the Holocaust is a hoax! You must be kidding right? Apparently not. It seems to me that some people when they truly believe in a lie, they eventually believe their own lie and they think it's paramount that other people also believe in such lie. Meh, not for me. I rather like to be on the side of Truth and will defend it whenever I can and whenever the need arise.
But what's their motivation? I think this quote summed it up pretty well:
"Holocaust denier stands for neo-fascists, anti-Semites, and opponents of all the values a democratic society holds dear." (pg. 245)
I would have read this faster if I didn't keep flipping back and forth to the notes.
I read this book because I was curious as to what on earth that there are actually people and/or movement that actually believe that the Holocaust is a hoax! You must be kidding right? Apparently not. It seems to me that some people when they truly believe in a lie, they eventually believe their own lie and they think it's paramount that other people also believe in such lie. Meh, not for me. I rather like to be on the side of Truth and will defend it whenever I can and whenever the need arise.
But what's their motivation? I think this quote summed it up pretty well:
"Holocaust denier stands for neo-fascists, anti-Semites, and opponents of all the values a democratic society holds dear." (pg. 245)
February 5, 2017
This was the first book to read on the syllabus of my Political Theory class on the Ideologies of the Holocaust. It was fascinating, frustrating, and insightful. I do think it's a little dated (being published in 1993) but Lipstadt's critical voice is still relevant today.
It amazes me that there are people in academia and journalism who spend their time and efforts in studying and convincing other people that the Holocaust didn't occur, or rather, that the Holocaust was a hoax.
It amazes me that there are people in academia and journalism who spend their time and efforts in studying and convincing other people that the Holocaust didn't occur, or rather, that the Holocaust was a hoax.
January 1, 2020
It’s depressing that we need this book! We don’t debate if the French Revolution happened or slavery so why is the Holocaust up for debate? With contrary, misinformed people out there believing the world is flat, denying climate change, anti-vaxers and that Elvis is still alive; this book is more essential than ever. Lipstadt puts her case across with intelligence, wit and great humanity! A 5 star read.
January 28, 2022
This was a difficult book to rate. The prose is wonderful, it is brilliantly researched and written, and the work is forceful and will be incredibly useful in discourse with the growing Holocaust denial community. On the other hand, it focuses in too deeply on a few authors and makes some of it too involved in the various claims made by deniers generations ago. At the same time, it was written twenty years ago and the discourse and place of denial has changed quite a bit, and the author of the book has written extensively about the changing shape of denial and anti-semitism in global discourse. It would make a lot of sense for a new edition to be released.
March 28, 2023
4.5/5
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.A month or so ago, I was asked by the head of the foundation, which provides the funding for the library I librarian for, to acquire a copy of Mein Kampf for usage in an upcoming foundation-sponsored book discussion event. On page thirty-six of this book, I came across "Father Charles C. Coughlin's antisemitic diatribes on CBS radio", and remembered that the event had indeed named as primary subject a Coughlin who, in his day, had quite the radio following. The two events are only connected due to the fact that a copy of this book was available at one of my local libraries, upon which viewing I thought, hey, this has been on my TBR list since 2016. Now that I've finally embarked on a full time realization of my career in propagating information literacy and related skillsets, it might be good to get to this. Now that I've finished, I've realized the commonality between Holocaust-denial and the "moral panic" that, these days, have fixated on trans folks and libraries that, one way or another, acknowledge trans folks as human beings. It made an already difficult read that much more stressful, and certain aspects, such as delegitimatizing the study of other human-abetted atrocities through a genocide paradigm, extending even to the Armenian genocide, meant that for all that, I still couldn't give this five stars. However, it legitimatized certain anti-kyriarchical critical awareness building projects of mine and alerted me to how I may go about ever more effectively propagating such in both myself and others, and considering how I was saved the hundreds of dollars folks in my field usually spend on such endeavors, I'd say this was more than worth the nominal, if at times heartrending, entrance fee.
It is naive to believe that the "light of day" can dispel lies, especially when they play on familiar stereotypes. Victims of racism, sexism, antisemitism, and a host of other prejudices know of light's limited ability to discredit falsehood. Light is barely an antidote when people are unable, as was often the case in this investigation, to differentiate between reasoned arguments and blatant falsehoods.
A death toll on which all historians unequivocally agreed would raise legitimate suspicions about the independent nature of their historical research. It is precisely these differences that show that these are not "court-appointed" historians but independent researches, each trying to assemble a myriad of details regarding one of the most brutal and chaotic chapters in recent history.The Holocaust is something that I believe humanity is fully capable of inflicting upon itself once more if it is not made to learn the signs and forced to pay attention. This is an opinion I had formulated to some unspoken degree before reading this, but after Lipstadt concluded her piece by talking about how a 700+ page accreditation of the validity of The Diary of Anne Frank may have been "using an elephant to swat a fly", I have to agree with her unwritten insinuation that, considering the story she had laid out in the previous 230 pages, an elephant is what was needed. In light of that, even if you are fully committed to denouncing Holocaust denial, you need to read this book to understand what exactly you're looking at. To use my homeland as an example, the US is infamous for its crap education. Indeed, it's gotten to the point where even an extra pricey tuition is no guarantee to equip folks with a respect for scholarly research, an abiding engagement with critical thinking, and a continually honed capability for handling diversity, equity, and inclusion in both the academic community and the world at large, for is that likely to land you that six figure entry level position or ensconce you in the echelons of brown-nosed networking? No. What it will do, as illustrated by Lipstadt in her thorough analysis of a multitude of US college newspapers, many harking from the Ivy League and the UC system and any number pools denoting high (if not capable) repute, is make one a devotee to capitalism, an incompetent in their own civil liberties, and a fool in information literacy in general. And when it comes to the subjects of stereotype, prejudice, bigoted speech, and hate crimes, there will always be incentive to bend the systemic flaws of US education to its will, for all it takes is a good amount of funding, a parroting of academic rigor that flies under the critical gaze of the layperson, and a lot of folks more than willing to peddle the subscriptions, book the conference halls, schedule the talk show hots, and otherwise bend the US "influencer" system to its ethnic cleansing will. The solution? Ever communicating, ever uplifting, ever banding together with Jewish folks, for judging by the hate crime statistics of the last few years in the US alone, the threat is not dead. It's not even past.
The Nazis were keenly aware of the critical role the bureaucratic mechanism could play in allowing them to realize their plans. They knew [...] they had to demand complete "dehumanization" from their system if they were to realize their goals. They may not have achieved an ideally operating bureaucratic system but not for lack of trying.
It is breathtaking that students at a major university could declare repulsive the making of a decision based on the "quality" of ideas. One assumes that their entire education is geared toward the exploration of ideas with a certain lasting quality. This kind of reasoning essentially contravenes all that an institution of higher learning is supposed to profess.This is not the kind of book you finish on a high note. However, I have come out of it with a great deal of extremely valuable clarity about various matters, and my newfound hope springs not from the fact that denial of the Holocaust denial still happens to this day, but that what worked to combat it thirty years ago is still extremely viable today. Well vetted research principles, persistent keeping abreast of the systems by which information propagates amongst the colleges, the courts, the community networks, engaging with folks not in terms of giving them a documentary, but teaching them how to recognize the pyramid of hate and giving them the incentive to organize in the fact of seemingly overwhelmingly ubiquitous odds. As I said, these days, the "moral panic" against trans folks is, alongside that of the general "woke" fervor, one of the more visible industrial complexes of bigotry in the news reels, and one may be tempted to fully appropriate the resources built up by those combatting Holocaust denial in all its forms and assume that Jewish folks and their allies are fending well enough for themselves. Therein lies the fatal mistake. For to remember the Holocaust, to educate oneself on the subtle tenets on antisemitism, to practice eternal vigilance in a climate of indoctrinated bigotry that has targeted one specific people for 2000+ years means to see one's shared experiences in the face of kyriarchy as not a linear succession where we need to focus on this group now because this other group doesn't need so much focus anymore. Indeed, when it comes to trans folks, it is worthy tracing the rise of hatred all the way back to the Institut fur Sexualwissenchaft, the first sexology research center in the world, founded in Berlin in 1919 by Magnus Hirschfeld, physician and sexologist as well as gay and Jewish, running until 1933, upon which the Nazis burned its archives, destroyed its libraries, and sent any institute affiliates they could get their hands on to concentration camps. For back then, trans folks weren't a question of humanity, but a subject that was purely "biological and political", as has been couched the "Negro Problem", the "Jewish Question", and any attempt to render hatred palatable for the educated Liberal. So, to combat transphobia, you need not venture very far from the frontlines of combatting Holocaust denial at all. Indeed, your efforts will be all the stronger for it.
"This is not a question of respecting different points of view but rather of recognizing a group which repudiates the very values that bring us together."
-Joyce Appleby, President of the Organization of American Historians (OAH)
February 14, 2018
This makes me so mad. I just wish I could find these people and smack the stupidity and racism out of them. Sadly I don't think that would work and instead we need to be tireless in our efforts to stop this infiltration of what I will now call 'fake history'.
August 20, 2017
I originally picked up Deborah E. Lipstadt's Denying the Holocaust: The Growing Assault on Truth and Memory in 1993, shortly after it came out, when the college newspaper at my alma mater when I was attending published one of the Committee on Open Debate on the Holocaust's notorious antisemitic Holocaust-denial advertisements. But I never got around to actually reading Denying the Holocaust until this year, after the election of Donald Trump as President of the United States; particularly in light of his and his surrogates' numerous missteps regarding remembering the Holocaust—and now, in August 2017, in light of Trump's effectively defending neo-Nazis as "fine people"—mainly because it seemed more appropriate than ever. I am aware that a Goodreads feed is not necessarily the place for political discourse, but when one considers that wide swaths of Trump's supporters cheer every one of these incidents as, at the very least, a "dejudaizing" of the Holocaust, Lipstadt's seminal study becomes timelier than ever.
Denying the Holocaust has a very basic premise, and indeed provides the most basic education of it—the increasing trend of antisemites on both left and right to deny certain basic premises of the Holocaust, specifically that it targeted Jews for utter and complete extermination, men, women, and children. (Two of Lipstadt's "accompanying" volumes, Beyond Belief and History on Trial, may be seen as more in-depth discussion of more specific aspects of the overall phenomenon.) Yes, there are some parts of Denying the Holocaust that are dated, but the book is timeless precisely because even as methods, media, specific perpetrators and specific arguments of deniers change, their overall motive—antisemitism—remains identical, over decades and decades. That Lipstadt traces both the history of Holocaust denial and the modern (as of 1993, anyway) iterations thereof is a major credit to the book, insofar as the combination of history and reality on the ground make the case that this injury doesn't go away, even as Holocaust survivors, now over seventy years after the events, are dying in greater numbers than ever before. (Indeed, between the time I finished Denying the Holocaust and today, the oldest living man in the world, a Holocaust survivor, passed away at the age of 113.)
Lipstadt's work is profoundly depressing, particularly in August 2017, because, in the wake of the race riots in Charlottesville, neo-Nazis seem more empowered than they ever have in my lifetime, and their supporters include both the usual suspects in Holocaust denial and, apparently, the highest levels of American government. It has been said that we must remember in order that genocide never happen again, but when one recalls that Hitler felt comfortable perpetrating the Holocaust in part because the world did all but ignore the Armenian genocide only two decades prior, and when one realizes that numerous genocides have happened in the world since, it feels as if Lipstadt is fighting a losing battle. However, Lipstadt devotes an entire chapter to the all-too-frequently successful tactic of professional Holocaust deniers to place ads in college newspapers—and I haven't seen that tactic be successful almost in all the years since I graduated. Moreover, despite the Internet and the proliferation of racist, crackpot, and conspiracy theories thereupon, Holocaust denial has seemed to gain a limited foothold at best.
Nevertheless, as I write this review, intersectionality, while laudable, all too frequently—and explicitly—excludes Jewish people from the purview of oppressed peoples, despite the Holocaust. So Lipstadt's book is vital even twenty-five years after its publication, insofar as the general principles contained therein remain universal, even as particulars change.
Denying the Holocaust has a very basic premise, and indeed provides the most basic education of it—the increasing trend of antisemites on both left and right to deny certain basic premises of the Holocaust, specifically that it targeted Jews for utter and complete extermination, men, women, and children. (Two of Lipstadt's "accompanying" volumes, Beyond Belief and History on Trial, may be seen as more in-depth discussion of more specific aspects of the overall phenomenon.) Yes, there are some parts of Denying the Holocaust that are dated, but the book is timeless precisely because even as methods, media, specific perpetrators and specific arguments of deniers change, their overall motive—antisemitism—remains identical, over decades and decades. That Lipstadt traces both the history of Holocaust denial and the modern (as of 1993, anyway) iterations thereof is a major credit to the book, insofar as the combination of history and reality on the ground make the case that this injury doesn't go away, even as Holocaust survivors, now over seventy years after the events, are dying in greater numbers than ever before. (Indeed, between the time I finished Denying the Holocaust and today, the oldest living man in the world, a Holocaust survivor, passed away at the age of 113.)
Lipstadt's work is profoundly depressing, particularly in August 2017, because, in the wake of the race riots in Charlottesville, neo-Nazis seem more empowered than they ever have in my lifetime, and their supporters include both the usual suspects in Holocaust denial and, apparently, the highest levels of American government. It has been said that we must remember in order that genocide never happen again, but when one recalls that Hitler felt comfortable perpetrating the Holocaust in part because the world did all but ignore the Armenian genocide only two decades prior, and when one realizes that numerous genocides have happened in the world since, it feels as if Lipstadt is fighting a losing battle. However, Lipstadt devotes an entire chapter to the all-too-frequently successful tactic of professional Holocaust deniers to place ads in college newspapers—and I haven't seen that tactic be successful almost in all the years since I graduated. Moreover, despite the Internet and the proliferation of racist, crackpot, and conspiracy theories thereupon, Holocaust denial has seemed to gain a limited foothold at best.
Nevertheless, as I write this review, intersectionality, while laudable, all too frequently—and explicitly—excludes Jewish people from the purview of oppressed peoples, despite the Holocaust. So Lipstadt's book is vital even twenty-five years after its publication, insofar as the general principles contained therein remain universal, even as particulars change.
April 20, 2017
In this book, historian Deborah Lipstadt describes a growing movement to defend the idea that the Holocaust never happened, or that it was not as severe as it is purported to be (for instance, some deniers claim that what the Allies did to the Germans is as bad as the Holocaust, or that it is impossible to kill six million Jews because it was mathematically impossible to do so given the number of Jews that existed prior to the Holocaust). This is a fringe movement that utterly lacks credibility. An equivalent belief is that the earth is flat. Holocaust deniers are driven by anti-Semitism and claim that the Holocaust is a hoax perpetrated by Jews to build up the state of Israel or to earn money in the form of reparations.
It was difficult for Lipstadt to decide to write about Holocaust denial. One of the themes of this book is that there is a danger that, just by giving the deniers a platform and seriously engaging with their ideas, they can steadily carve out a space as the “other side,” people who just provide another viewpoint on historical reality. The fact is though that Holocaust deniers cast aside methodological constraints and do whatever it takes to advance their anti-Semitic ideology. They are therefore not to be taken seriously as historians.
A big dilemma is created on college campuses. Free speech is a hot issue right now especially in relation to college campuses. Violent protests erupting over the presence of various speakers on college campuses have led some to chastise overzealous social justice warriors. But, does a commitment to free speech also mean allowing Holocaust deniers a platform in a school paper or a speaking event? Lipstadt does not think so. She criticizes school newspapers who published ads created by Holocaust deniers in the name of free speech. Sticking to a very literal interpretation of the first amendment, Lipstadt claims that the first amendment only prevents government from restricting speech. It is okay for a private organization, therefore, like a campus newspaper, to ban certain viewpoints from their publications.
As we move farther and farther away from the Holocaust and the remaining survivors die off, the deniers attempts to sway public opinion become more and more dangerous. Recently, the Trump administration came under fire for failing to mention, when paying respect to victims of the Holocaust, that Jews were the specific targets of the Holocaust. When pressed, people in the administration stood by their omission. This is problematic because the Jews were singled out by the Nazis as in particular deserving of extermination. Also, there have revisionist renditions of history that claim that Jews were not the primary target of the Holocaust. For instance, some Communists have claimed that Communists were the main target of the Holocaust.
Holocaust deniers engage in every kind of logical fallacy and sophistry imaginable in order to avoid plain facts. For instance, it is a fact that Jews had to wear a yellow star; if they were found not to be wearing one, they could be killed. Holocaust denier Robert Faurisson recognizes this fact but explains it away, claiming that it was a necessary measure to protect Germans. Jews, Faurisson claims, were involved in dangerous activities like espionage, terrorism, and arms trafficking. Another fact is that even Jewish children had to wear a yellow star. Surely, these children couldn’t have been dangerous? But, Faurisson, in the grips of an evil ideology, maintains his theory, Even the Jewish children were dangerous and Germans needed an immediate way to identify them.
Holocaust deniers are committed to their ideology and it is impossible to debate with them. Debating them can actually backfire, as the very act of debating someone implies a certain level of credence for their view. If it has to be refuted, there must be some merit to it. One doesn’t have to refute the idea that 2+2=5. Still, there is a need to defend those who perished so tragically in the Holocaust. As Lipstadt writes, “The still, small voices of millions cry out to us from the ground demanding that we do no less.”
It was difficult for Lipstadt to decide to write about Holocaust denial. One of the themes of this book is that there is a danger that, just by giving the deniers a platform and seriously engaging with their ideas, they can steadily carve out a space as the “other side,” people who just provide another viewpoint on historical reality. The fact is though that Holocaust deniers cast aside methodological constraints and do whatever it takes to advance their anti-Semitic ideology. They are therefore not to be taken seriously as historians.
A big dilemma is created on college campuses. Free speech is a hot issue right now especially in relation to college campuses. Violent protests erupting over the presence of various speakers on college campuses have led some to chastise overzealous social justice warriors. But, does a commitment to free speech also mean allowing Holocaust deniers a platform in a school paper or a speaking event? Lipstadt does not think so. She criticizes school newspapers who published ads created by Holocaust deniers in the name of free speech. Sticking to a very literal interpretation of the first amendment, Lipstadt claims that the first amendment only prevents government from restricting speech. It is okay for a private organization, therefore, like a campus newspaper, to ban certain viewpoints from their publications.
As we move farther and farther away from the Holocaust and the remaining survivors die off, the deniers attempts to sway public opinion become more and more dangerous. Recently, the Trump administration came under fire for failing to mention, when paying respect to victims of the Holocaust, that Jews were the specific targets of the Holocaust. When pressed, people in the administration stood by their omission. This is problematic because the Jews were singled out by the Nazis as in particular deserving of extermination. Also, there have revisionist renditions of history that claim that Jews were not the primary target of the Holocaust. For instance, some Communists have claimed that Communists were the main target of the Holocaust.
Holocaust deniers engage in every kind of logical fallacy and sophistry imaginable in order to avoid plain facts. For instance, it is a fact that Jews had to wear a yellow star; if they were found not to be wearing one, they could be killed. Holocaust denier Robert Faurisson recognizes this fact but explains it away, claiming that it was a necessary measure to protect Germans. Jews, Faurisson claims, were involved in dangerous activities like espionage, terrorism, and arms trafficking. Another fact is that even Jewish children had to wear a yellow star. Surely, these children couldn’t have been dangerous? But, Faurisson, in the grips of an evil ideology, maintains his theory, Even the Jewish children were dangerous and Germans needed an immediate way to identify them.
Holocaust deniers are committed to their ideology and it is impossible to debate with them. Debating them can actually backfire, as the very act of debating someone implies a certain level of credence for their view. If it has to be refuted, there must be some merit to it. One doesn’t have to refute the idea that 2+2=5. Still, there is a need to defend those who perished so tragically in the Holocaust. As Lipstadt writes, “The still, small voices of millions cry out to us from the ground demanding that we do no less.”
May 9, 2010
Deborah Lipstadt is an amazing woman, who has taken on a thankless task - that of explaining to the public why historians don't need to give "equal time" to the "other side" of the discussion about the Holocaust. Put simply, it is because deniers of the Holocaust aren't engaging in history, they are distorting it, and any direct answer to their charges in turn legitimizes their lies. This book elaborates that answer in great detail, by demonstrating the fallacies of denial and exposing its true agenda, which is to make the world safe again for anti-Semitism. It is not an easy or pleasant book to read, and at times any true civil libertarian will find their most cherished assumptions about free speech to be challenged and questioned, but such challenges are part of what contribute to growth and understanding. It sets right a great many inaccuracies and corrects many errors, and will make nearly anyone who reads it think about the meaning of the past, and the need to protect memory over forgetting.
October 28, 2016
In June 2002 I was in Atlanta for the American Library Association's Annual Conference and chose to attend a presentation by this author on a Libel Suit she had been involved, with Holocaust Denier David Irving, in Britain. At the time, I was quite surprised by the fact there were people who still believed the Holocaust did not happen and wanted to know more. In this book, Irving is mentioned maybe about a dozen or so times. Based on what she did say about him, he decided to bring a Libel Suit against Dr Lipstadt---in the UK---where SHE had to prove that he was a Holocaust Denier, an antisemite as well as a horrible historian. If he had filed the suit in the US, he would have had the burden of proof. So, this is the book that started one of the most famous trials in regards to the Holocaust. A movie has just been released, "Denial", which is the story of the courtroom battle. A follow up review on her book about the trial will be next.
January 28, 2019
read for Holocaust Memorial Day. It is powerful, searing, rigorous.
"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 t he Holocaust enlists a basic strategy of distortion. Truth is mixed with absolute lies, confusing readers who are unfa miliar 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. "
"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 t he Holocaust enlists a basic strategy of distortion. Truth is mixed with absolute lies, confusing readers who are unfa miliar 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. "
December 17, 2017
Excellent. Anyone who is even contemplating whether the Holocaust happened of not need only read Lipstadt's refutation and they'll soon see reason.
Not only does she debunk the claims of deniers through its recent history, Lipstadt also takes into account whether the rights to free speech are impeded by the 'no-platforming' of Holocaust deniers. In today's debates this is very relevant with fascists taking many guises to sell their mandates onto campuses.
"We will remain ever vigilant so that the most precious tools of our trade and our society - truth and reason - can prevail. The still, small voices of millions cry out to us from the ground demanding that we do no less." - DL
Essential reading.
Not only does she debunk the claims of deniers through its recent history, Lipstadt also takes into account whether the rights to free speech are impeded by the 'no-platforming' of Holocaust deniers. In today's debates this is very relevant with fascists taking many guises to sell their mandates onto campuses.
"We will remain ever vigilant so that the most precious tools of our trade and our society - truth and reason - can prevail. The still, small voices of millions cry out to us from the ground demanding that we do no less." - DL
Essential reading.
November 17, 2017
Just shy of twenty-five years from its original publication, Denying the Holocaust is arguably (and disturbingly) more relevant now than ever. If you need further proof of the quality of Lipstadt’s excellent and rational research when you’re done with her book, the ugly crop of attack manifestos that rear their ugly heads when one tries to search for this title even on our lovely Goodreads will demonstrate that she’s hit the deniers where it hurts and that her work (and ours) is hardly over.
August 10, 2016
People are stupid. Sometimes you don't realize how stupid, though in a free culture, you can quickly realize how stupid.
At times a little dry, Lipstadt's book discusses the history of Holocaust Denial as well as the tactics that such deniers use. She also illustrates the difference between the right to say anything and the fact that no one needs to publish it.
At times a little dry, Lipstadt's book discusses the history of Holocaust Denial as well as the tactics that such deniers use. She also illustrates the difference between the right to say anything and the fact that no one needs to publish it.
![Profile Image for [Name Redacted].](https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/users/1347082397i/287915._UY200_CR0,0,200,200_.jpg)
October 8, 2010
Absolutely essential.
December 20, 2020
Reading Denying the Holocaust gave me similar feelings to those I had when I read The Gospel According to the KKK. First: revulsion. Second: repulsed fascination. Third: Relief that the truth still stands despite deniers.
The burden and blessing of the historian is telling the truth while acknowledging one's slant. In this day, when "alternative facts" is something certain people take seriously, and "fake news" can decry anything that doesn't fit one's fancy, it's fair to say the truth is under attack. As Pilate said, "What is truth?" There are more than a few people in my life who have drawn me, unwillingly, into arguments about simple facts I know to be true, facts in previous years we agreed on--even facts they taught me. What's changed is our mutual willingness to adhere to objective truths about reality. In a recent Atlantic interview, Barack Obama calls this an "epistemological crisis." That phrase is an apt description of what Lipstadt combats in her work regarding the truth of the Holocaust and the lies of its deniers.
Lipstadt's work here centers on three things. First, she identifies deniers and denial movements, tracks their arguments over time, and evaluates their claims. Second, she considers the reception of these arguments in public and academic spheres. She especially focuses on reception on varied college campuses. Third, she argues that denialism is not a valid "other side" deserving of debate, reception, or promotion by scholars. Largely, this is because Holocaust denialism blatantly ignores evidence and builds on fictions, forgeries, and misquotations. You can't rationally argue with someone who values irrationality over reason. Below, I quote some of her pithier statements on this, but one of her main points is that denialism is not the "other side" because it is built on perversion and deliberate ignorance of historical fact. Another is that publicly debating deniers, running their ads in campus newspapers, reviewing their books, et c. positions them as the "other side," even when the purpose is to discredit. Thus, Lipstadt chose to write a book on Denying the Holocaust to discredit denialism safely, without trying to "nail a glob of jelly to the wall." (221)
It's worth noting that Lipstadt makes many public appearances. She has a TED Talk, debated making denialism illegal at the Oxford Union, and is one of the foremost Holocaust historians in the world. Her refusal to debate deniers has only given her broader reach, because she is not sullied by association with the pseudohistorical nonsense of denialism. In the preface to the 1994 paperback edition, she lists example questions of what is up for debate in Holocaust historiography: Was the Final Solution Hitler's plan, or did it come from lower-level officials in response to the war? Is the Holocaust the same variety of other persecutions/genocides? Were the actions of non-Jewish rescuers heroic, or the bare minimum? (xiv) As this book was published in 1994, and I am not a Holocaust historian, I don't know whether these questions have been satisfactorily answered,. Based on my memories of visits to Holocaust remembrance museums, many questions about the Holocaust are still up for debate--just not the fact of the genocide itself.
Lipstadt discusses David Irving, a famed British denier of the Holocaust, in this book. He took her to court for slander in England, and the burden fell on Lipstadt, the accused, to prove the Holocaust happened. Denial (2016) is the film made of the story. If you don't have the stomach for Denying the Holocaust, Denial is less of a commitment, and a good introduction to the slimy world of denialism.
If you can manage to sit through a book on Holocaust denialism, I'd recommend this one purely for its value in thinking about truth and history in today's world. Remember in 2017 when the White House's statement on Holocaust Remembrance Day didn't mention Jews or antisemitism? Yeah, sadly, Holocaust denialism is alive, well, and living in Charlottesville.
What I found particularly interesting, reading this over 25 years after its publication, is how the world has changed in regard to historical truth. Denialisms of all sorts have taken root, following identical paths to the ones Lipstadt charts in Denying the Holocaust. Yet, I'm encouraged by many folks of my generation who are so plagued by such denialisms that they are becoming wonderful, loud historians. The National Memorial for Peace and Justice, which opened in 2018, reminds our nation of the victims of lynching and racial violence. Dress historians regularly lambaste period dramas for inaccurate costumes and hair/makeup, appealing to fashion plates, paintings, and extant items of material culture as historical record, all while recreating historical garments with astonishing devotion. While "the media" may consider Uggs in an 1860s film okay, YouTube dress historians do not see history with such relativism. Many other young historians and historical groups are responding to denialism in their own ways, and more than ever, I'm seeing historical research becoming popular again. If the purpose is to spite deniers, so be it, as long as the truth is told in the process.
-----
[Quoting Hannah Arendt] "Facts inform opinions and opinions, inspired by different interests and passions, can differ widely and still be legitimate as long as they respect factual truth. Freedom of opinion is a farce unless factual information is guaranteed and the facts themselves are not in dispute." (xv)
"One can believe that Elvis Presley is alive and well and living in Moscow. However sincere one's conviction, that does not make it a legitimate opinion or the 'other side' of a debate. In the name of free inquiry we must not succumb to the silly view...that every idea is of equal validity and worth. Although the academy must remain a place where ideas can be freely and vigorously explored, it must first be a place that differentiates between ideas with lasting quality and those with none." (xvi)
[Regarding Stanley Fish and others that argued that texts had no fixed meaning, leading to a relativistic approach to truth in the academy and attacks on history] "These attacks on history and knowledge have the potential to alter dramatically the way established truth is transmitted from generation to generation. Ultimately the climate they create is of no less importance than the specific truth they attack--be it the Holocaust or the assassination of President Kennedy. It is a climate that fosters deconstructionist history at its worst. No fact, no event, and no aspect of history has any fixed meaning or content. Any truth can be retold. Any fact can be recast. There is no ultimate historical reality." (19) Sound like Twitter?
"[V]irtually all Holocaust scholars call attention to the fact that Nazi annihilation of the Jews was irrational. Skilled workers were killed even if their tasks were unfinished. Precious freight cars needed to transport matériel to the front were used to carry Jews to their deaths. The Holocaust must be understood as something lacking in functional reason." (114, emphasis mine)
"This evaluation by Wilson is further evidence of why the new pseudo-academic style adopted by deniers in recent years is so dangerous. Their packaging, which mimics legitimate scholarly research, confuses consumers. Readers are more susceptible to being influenced by an academic style than by poorly printed extremist and racist publications." (120)
"Although the IHR [Institute for Historical Review, a denialist publication] and its followers proclaim that Holocaust denial is heir to a genuine intellectual legacy, analysis of the institute, its publication and activities, and the people most closely associated with it throws into stark relief the fact that, notwithstanding its claims to intellectual legitimacy, the IHR is part of a continuum of extreme antisemitism and racism." (142)
"This is the denier's ultimate trump card. They have the only rational explanation for something that remains, despite massive research, essentially irrational: It could not happen. When Pressac [who was being courted by French deniers] subjected deniers' theories to documentary analysis he understood that they were not just essentially flawed. They ignored reams of evidence that proved precisely what Faurisson and his cohorts wished to deny." (174)
"A review of his [David Irving's] recent book, Churchill's War, which appeared in the New York Review of Books, accurately analyzed his practice of applying a double standard to evidence. He demands 'absolute documentary proof' when it comes to proving the Germans guilty, but he relies on highly circumstantial evidence to condemn the Allies. This is an accurate description not only of Irving's tactics, but of those of deniers in general." (181)
"Leonard Zeskind, the research director of the Center for Democratic Renewal in Kansas City, Missouri, and a respected specialist on extremism in America, categorized Smith's [a denier's] efforts as reflective of a general shift among 'white supremacists' and extremists away from the political margins into the mainstream by avoiding any overt association with swastika-bedecked or white-sheeted fascist groups. David Duke's re-creation of his past during the presidential campaign was an example of this strategy, which confuses many people who can easily identify the objectives of Klan, White Aryan Nation, and Posse Comitatus but who find it more difficult to recognize extremism when it is cloaked in a seemingly rational and familiar garb." (187)
"[T]he minute they categorized it as a 'view,' they advanced the cause of Holocaust denial. That students failed to grasp that the ad contravened all canons of evidence and scholarship was distressing. But those at the helm sometimes also failed to grasp that the ad was not advocating a radical moral position but a patent untruth." (207)
"In the future, deniers may adopt and adapt a form of relativism as they attempt to move from well outside the parameters of rational discourse to the fringes of historical legitimacy." (215-216)
"Denial aims to reshape history in order to rehabilitate the victors and demonize the victims." (216)
"The deniers will, to be sure, cultivate this external guise of a reasoned approach all the more forcefully in years to come. They will refine this image in an attempt to confuse the public about who they really are. Any public contact with white-power and radical right-wing groups will be curtailed. People without identifiable racist or extremist pasts will be drafted for leadership positions...Overt expressions of antisemitism will be restrained so that those who fail to understand that Holocaust denial is nothing but antisemitism may be fooled into thinking it is not." (217-218)
"Not ignoring the deniers does not mean engaging them in discussion or debate. In fact, it means not doing that. We cannot debate them for two reasons, one strategic and the other tactical. As we have repeatedly seen, the deniers long to be considered the 'other' side. Engaging them in discussion makes them exactly that. Second, they are contemptuous of the very tools that shape any honest debate: truth and reason. Debating them would be like trying to nail a glob of jelly to a wall." (221, emphasis mine)
The burden and blessing of the historian is telling the truth while acknowledging one's slant. In this day, when "alternative facts" is something certain people take seriously, and "fake news" can decry anything that doesn't fit one's fancy, it's fair to say the truth is under attack. As Pilate said, "What is truth?" There are more than a few people in my life who have drawn me, unwillingly, into arguments about simple facts I know to be true, facts in previous years we agreed on--even facts they taught me. What's changed is our mutual willingness to adhere to objective truths about reality. In a recent Atlantic interview, Barack Obama calls this an "epistemological crisis." That phrase is an apt description of what Lipstadt combats in her work regarding the truth of the Holocaust and the lies of its deniers.
Lipstadt's work here centers on three things. First, she identifies deniers and denial movements, tracks their arguments over time, and evaluates their claims. Second, she considers the reception of these arguments in public and academic spheres. She especially focuses on reception on varied college campuses. Third, she argues that denialism is not a valid "other side" deserving of debate, reception, or promotion by scholars. Largely, this is because Holocaust denialism blatantly ignores evidence and builds on fictions, forgeries, and misquotations. You can't rationally argue with someone who values irrationality over reason. Below, I quote some of her pithier statements on this, but one of her main points is that denialism is not the "other side" because it is built on perversion and deliberate ignorance of historical fact. Another is that publicly debating deniers, running their ads in campus newspapers, reviewing their books, et c. positions them as the "other side," even when the purpose is to discredit. Thus, Lipstadt chose to write a book on Denying the Holocaust to discredit denialism safely, without trying to "nail a glob of jelly to the wall." (221)
It's worth noting that Lipstadt makes many public appearances. She has a TED Talk, debated making denialism illegal at the Oxford Union, and is one of the foremost Holocaust historians in the world. Her refusal to debate deniers has only given her broader reach, because she is not sullied by association with the pseudohistorical nonsense of denialism. In the preface to the 1994 paperback edition, she lists example questions of what is up for debate in Holocaust historiography: Was the Final Solution Hitler's plan, or did it come from lower-level officials in response to the war? Is the Holocaust the same variety of other persecutions/genocides? Were the actions of non-Jewish rescuers heroic, or the bare minimum? (xiv) As this book was published in 1994, and I am not a Holocaust historian, I don't know whether these questions have been satisfactorily answered,. Based on my memories of visits to Holocaust remembrance museums, many questions about the Holocaust are still up for debate--just not the fact of the genocide itself.
Lipstadt discusses David Irving, a famed British denier of the Holocaust, in this book. He took her to court for slander in England, and the burden fell on Lipstadt, the accused, to prove the Holocaust happened. Denial (2016) is the film made of the story. If you don't have the stomach for Denying the Holocaust, Denial is less of a commitment, and a good introduction to the slimy world of denialism.
If you can manage to sit through a book on Holocaust denialism, I'd recommend this one purely for its value in thinking about truth and history in today's world. Remember in 2017 when the White House's statement on Holocaust Remembrance Day didn't mention Jews or antisemitism? Yeah, sadly, Holocaust denialism is alive, well, and living in Charlottesville.
What I found particularly interesting, reading this over 25 years after its publication, is how the world has changed in regard to historical truth. Denialisms of all sorts have taken root, following identical paths to the ones Lipstadt charts in Denying the Holocaust. Yet, I'm encouraged by many folks of my generation who are so plagued by such denialisms that they are becoming wonderful, loud historians. The National Memorial for Peace and Justice, which opened in 2018, reminds our nation of the victims of lynching and racial violence. Dress historians regularly lambaste period dramas for inaccurate costumes and hair/makeup, appealing to fashion plates, paintings, and extant items of material culture as historical record, all while recreating historical garments with astonishing devotion. While "the media" may consider Uggs in an 1860s film okay, YouTube dress historians do not see history with such relativism. Many other young historians and historical groups are responding to denialism in their own ways, and more than ever, I'm seeing historical research becoming popular again. If the purpose is to spite deniers, so be it, as long as the truth is told in the process.
-----
[Quoting Hannah Arendt] "Facts inform opinions and opinions, inspired by different interests and passions, can differ widely and still be legitimate as long as they respect factual truth. Freedom of opinion is a farce unless factual information is guaranteed and the facts themselves are not in dispute." (xv)
"One can believe that Elvis Presley is alive and well and living in Moscow. However sincere one's conviction, that does not make it a legitimate opinion or the 'other side' of a debate. In the name of free inquiry we must not succumb to the silly view...that every idea is of equal validity and worth. Although the academy must remain a place where ideas can be freely and vigorously explored, it must first be a place that differentiates between ideas with lasting quality and those with none." (xvi)
[Regarding Stanley Fish and others that argued that texts had no fixed meaning, leading to a relativistic approach to truth in the academy and attacks on history] "These attacks on history and knowledge have the potential to alter dramatically the way established truth is transmitted from generation to generation. Ultimately the climate they create is of no less importance than the specific truth they attack--be it the Holocaust or the assassination of President Kennedy. It is a climate that fosters deconstructionist history at its worst. No fact, no event, and no aspect of history has any fixed meaning or content. Any truth can be retold. Any fact can be recast. There is no ultimate historical reality." (19) Sound like Twitter?
"[V]irtually all Holocaust scholars call attention to the fact that Nazi annihilation of the Jews was irrational. Skilled workers were killed even if their tasks were unfinished. Precious freight cars needed to transport matériel to the front were used to carry Jews to their deaths. The Holocaust must be understood as something lacking in functional reason." (114, emphasis mine)
"This evaluation by Wilson is further evidence of why the new pseudo-academic style adopted by deniers in recent years is so dangerous. Their packaging, which mimics legitimate scholarly research, confuses consumers. Readers are more susceptible to being influenced by an academic style than by poorly printed extremist and racist publications." (120)
"Although the IHR [Institute for Historical Review, a denialist publication] and its followers proclaim that Holocaust denial is heir to a genuine intellectual legacy, analysis of the institute, its publication and activities, and the people most closely associated with it throws into stark relief the fact that, notwithstanding its claims to intellectual legitimacy, the IHR is part of a continuum of extreme antisemitism and racism." (142)
"This is the denier's ultimate trump card. They have the only rational explanation for something that remains, despite massive research, essentially irrational: It could not happen. When Pressac [who was being courted by French deniers] subjected deniers' theories to documentary analysis he understood that they were not just essentially flawed. They ignored reams of evidence that proved precisely what Faurisson and his cohorts wished to deny." (174)
"A review of his [David Irving's] recent book, Churchill's War, which appeared in the New York Review of Books, accurately analyzed his practice of applying a double standard to evidence. He demands 'absolute documentary proof' when it comes to proving the Germans guilty, but he relies on highly circumstantial evidence to condemn the Allies. This is an accurate description not only of Irving's tactics, but of those of deniers in general." (181)
"Leonard Zeskind, the research director of the Center for Democratic Renewal in Kansas City, Missouri, and a respected specialist on extremism in America, categorized Smith's [a denier's] efforts as reflective of a general shift among 'white supremacists' and extremists away from the political margins into the mainstream by avoiding any overt association with swastika-bedecked or white-sheeted fascist groups. David Duke's re-creation of his past during the presidential campaign was an example of this strategy, which confuses many people who can easily identify the objectives of Klan, White Aryan Nation, and Posse Comitatus but who find it more difficult to recognize extremism when it is cloaked in a seemingly rational and familiar garb." (187)
"[T]he minute they categorized it as a 'view,' they advanced the cause of Holocaust denial. That students failed to grasp that the ad contravened all canons of evidence and scholarship was distressing. But those at the helm sometimes also failed to grasp that the ad was not advocating a radical moral position but a patent untruth." (207)
"In the future, deniers may adopt and adapt a form of relativism as they attempt to move from well outside the parameters of rational discourse to the fringes of historical legitimacy." (215-216)
"Denial aims to reshape history in order to rehabilitate the victors and demonize the victims." (216)
"The deniers will, to be sure, cultivate this external guise of a reasoned approach all the more forcefully in years to come. They will refine this image in an attempt to confuse the public about who they really are. Any public contact with white-power and radical right-wing groups will be curtailed. People without identifiable racist or extremist pasts will be drafted for leadership positions...Overt expressions of antisemitism will be restrained so that those who fail to understand that Holocaust denial is nothing but antisemitism may be fooled into thinking it is not." (217-218)
"Not ignoring the deniers does not mean engaging them in discussion or debate. In fact, it means not doing that. We cannot debate them for two reasons, one strategic and the other tactical. As we have repeatedly seen, the deniers long to be considered the 'other' side. Engaging them in discussion makes them exactly that. Second, they are contemptuous of the very tools that shape any honest debate: truth and reason. Debating them would be like trying to nail a glob of jelly to a wall." (221, emphasis mine)
January 1, 2021
I came at this book backwards, because I've previously read a couple of books about the Irving libel trial, where David Irving tried to sue Deborah Lipdstadt for accurately calling him a Holocaust denier. Bascially, that's what this book is: Lipstadt accurately calling people Holocaust deniers and laying out their methodologies and pet fallacies and so on. It is, of course, almost 30 years out of date, so more a primary text about the history of Holocaust denial in the 1980s than anything else. But it was still engaging and interesting (and infuriating) and I'm sure that though the players have changed, the script is still relevant.
August 18, 2020
When ‘Denying the Holocaust’ was published in 1992 some criticised Professor Deborah Lipstadt's decision to write it. It gave, her critics argued, a great deal of coverage to a fringe group that was best left in obscurity. In her introduction she challenges this perspective, contending that while it is inappropriate to enter into debate with Holocaust Deniers, which inadvertently lends a legitimacy to their position, it is no longer appropriate or possible to simply ignore them. They are too dangerously close to entering the mainstream to do so. If this was true in the early 90s then it is even truer today.
Why do people deny the Holocaust? Why, despite the insurmountable weight of evidence that approximately six million Jews were murdered as part of a policy by the Nazi regime, do people insist that the historians have it all wrong? This is the question that Lipstadt provides a clear answer to in tracing the development of holocaust denial from the post-war years to the 1990s. How did this movement come about? Well, the evidence of Nazi brutality presented at Nuremberg obviously did not look good for defenders of National Socialism. It also cast doubt on the ethical validity of the pre-war arguments for adopting an isolationist approach to foreign affairs. The original response by many in these two groups consisted not so much of denial, but attempts at moral equivalency and suggestion that the horrors were a by-product of war rather than a deliberate operation. It was only after the 1950 publication of Paul Rassinier’s 'The Lie of Ulysses', in which he expressed doubt at the existence of gas chambers, that elements of the far-Right cottoned on to the potential usefulness of denying the genocide in its entirety. A few thousand perhaps died of disease in camps, but the blame for the poor conditions that allowed this could be blamed on Allied bombings. Other than that, the whole thing was a swindle designed to blame the Axis for crimes that were either never committed or which were perpetrated by the Allies. The original attempts at this by neo-Nazis were semi-literate, crude and too openly regretful in their belief that six million Jews had not been murdered. Gradually the outright ant-Semitism began to be toned down and the appearance of historical respectability was increasingly adopted.
This is, as Lipstadt emphasizes, a façade. The proposition that the Holocaust did not happen (or denial of the central tenants of the Holocaust) is only tenable if one believes in a powerful Jewish conspiracy that has been able to hoodwink a gullible public for the past seventy years. Despite the protest of deniers to the contrary, Holocaust denial is explicitly anti-Semitic and rests entirely on the belief in the existence of powerful nefarious Jews plotting how to con the goyim. There are not two equal sides on whether the Holocaust happened. The historical evidence is clear that it did. The other side is a paranoid delusion dependent entirely on fabrication. Historical revisionism it most certainly is not. The central thesis of Lipstadt’s book is that Holocaust denial bears absolutely no resemblance to real history, whether mainstream or revisionist.
As Lipstadt explores the main figures and organizations that have promoted Holocaust Denial, it becomes undeniable that, aside from one or two oddities, anti-Semitism is the motivating factor. The evidence of history in reaching such a conclusion is irrelevant; it can be dismissed or embraced as long as it fits into the conspiratorial narrative. Sometimes this sinister obsession has resulted in people with undeniable talent as maverick historians, namely David Irving, moving from the fringes of legitimate revisionism into outright denial.
This is an important book. Holocaust denial continues to be a pillar of neo-Nazi ideology, but it has become disturbingly visible amongst adherents of other ideological positions, some of which are no longer quite so fringe. Islamist groups openly embrace the anti-Semitic narrative of denial, and the increasingly mainstream anti-Zionist Left are not shy in flirting with it. Deborah Lipstadt was right to publish this book and was right to stand by it when challenged in court. My opinion is that an updated version, taking into account developments over the past twenty-five years, is overdue. The assault on truth and memory is unfortunately growing
Why do people deny the Holocaust? Why, despite the insurmountable weight of evidence that approximately six million Jews were murdered as part of a policy by the Nazi regime, do people insist that the historians have it all wrong? This is the question that Lipstadt provides a clear answer to in tracing the development of holocaust denial from the post-war years to the 1990s. How did this movement come about? Well, the evidence of Nazi brutality presented at Nuremberg obviously did not look good for defenders of National Socialism. It also cast doubt on the ethical validity of the pre-war arguments for adopting an isolationist approach to foreign affairs. The original response by many in these two groups consisted not so much of denial, but attempts at moral equivalency and suggestion that the horrors were a by-product of war rather than a deliberate operation. It was only after the 1950 publication of Paul Rassinier’s 'The Lie of Ulysses', in which he expressed doubt at the existence of gas chambers, that elements of the far-Right cottoned on to the potential usefulness of denying the genocide in its entirety. A few thousand perhaps died of disease in camps, but the blame for the poor conditions that allowed this could be blamed on Allied bombings. Other than that, the whole thing was a swindle designed to blame the Axis for crimes that were either never committed or which were perpetrated by the Allies. The original attempts at this by neo-Nazis were semi-literate, crude and too openly regretful in their belief that six million Jews had not been murdered. Gradually the outright ant-Semitism began to be toned down and the appearance of historical respectability was increasingly adopted.
This is, as Lipstadt emphasizes, a façade. The proposition that the Holocaust did not happen (or denial of the central tenants of the Holocaust) is only tenable if one believes in a powerful Jewish conspiracy that has been able to hoodwink a gullible public for the past seventy years. Despite the protest of deniers to the contrary, Holocaust denial is explicitly anti-Semitic and rests entirely on the belief in the existence of powerful nefarious Jews plotting how to con the goyim. There are not two equal sides on whether the Holocaust happened. The historical evidence is clear that it did. The other side is a paranoid delusion dependent entirely on fabrication. Historical revisionism it most certainly is not. The central thesis of Lipstadt’s book is that Holocaust denial bears absolutely no resemblance to real history, whether mainstream or revisionist.
As Lipstadt explores the main figures and organizations that have promoted Holocaust Denial, it becomes undeniable that, aside from one or two oddities, anti-Semitism is the motivating factor. The evidence of history in reaching such a conclusion is irrelevant; it can be dismissed or embraced as long as it fits into the conspiratorial narrative. Sometimes this sinister obsession has resulted in people with undeniable talent as maverick historians, namely David Irving, moving from the fringes of legitimate revisionism into outright denial.
This is an important book. Holocaust denial continues to be a pillar of neo-Nazi ideology, but it has become disturbingly visible amongst adherents of other ideological positions, some of which are no longer quite so fringe. Islamist groups openly embrace the anti-Semitic narrative of denial, and the increasingly mainstream anti-Zionist Left are not shy in flirting with it. Deborah Lipstadt was right to publish this book and was right to stand by it when challenged in court. My opinion is that an updated version, taking into account developments over the past twenty-five years, is overdue. The assault on truth and memory is unfortunately growing
January 1, 2019
This is one of those books that you pick up and immediately grabs your attention and gets you going. I was infuriated from the very beginning of the book - not with Dr. Lipstadt but with the fact that there are these “deniers” out there who have gone and continue to go to great lengths to revise history and white-wash the German responsibility for World War II and for the Holocaust in particular.
Their methods initially were very rudimentary and poor in that they produced pamphlets that had limited circulation and were of low quality that is was obvious that their target audience was simply like-minded individuals. Initially much of their effort seems to have been devoted to exonerating Germany’s role in the war and portraying the Nazi regime as more victim of the Allies and of Jews in particular. The early deniers focused more on minimizing the numbers of Jews murdered in the death camps like Aushwitz-Birkenau, Treblinka, Buchenwald and others and on blaming those deaths to starvation and to the deprivations Nazi Germany experienced due to the Allies bombing campaigns. The initial focus was not on the gas chambers but rather explaining away the deaths and minimizing them and even equivocating them to the German deaths due to the Allies.
Over time their tactics changed more to denying that any Jews actually were murdered in the homicidal gas chambers at the death camps. The deniers focused on making claims that there was insufficient proof of wholesale slaughter (when in reality there has always been ample proof) and that the homicidal gas chambers were actually used for delousing prisoner’s clothes and property. Over time they went from printing pamphlets to whole books (usually published by neo-Nazi publishing houses) and to updating their presentation to having a pseudo-scholarly look to it by creating an “Institute” for historical research that publishes a “journal” (I hesitate to call it that since the “methods” used by the authors of the “articles” in this “journal” are nowhere near the historiographic bar for legitimate journals).
Dr. Lipstadt does an amazing effort to expose these people for who they really are: Antisemites who simply are looking to white-wash Germany’s crimes committed during World War 2 (particularly in reference to the Holocaust) and to bolster their false claims that Israel (and Jews in general) are trying to pull a “fast one” over the rest of the world. These people cherry pick their facts, misquote historical documents, or just fabricate lies to bolster their claims. Their behavior deserves to be derided by all - but yet they continue to attract like-minded neo-Nazis and Antisemites to them. What’s worse is that even those who are *NOT* neo-Nazis or Antisemitic sometimes fall into their traps and help promulgate their message unwittingly. The worst cases of these happens on university campuses where students and professors alike - who should have critical thinking skills - fail to realize that not all ideas or speech have merit and need to be defended.
I highly recommend this book to anyone who is interested in learning more about these deniers and their false messages and the danger they pose to historical accuracy and truth. We must be ever vigilant against them and call them out whenever they appear. Thank you Dr. Lipstadt for this wonderful work.
Their methods initially were very rudimentary and poor in that they produced pamphlets that had limited circulation and were of low quality that is was obvious that their target audience was simply like-minded individuals. Initially much of their effort seems to have been devoted to exonerating Germany’s role in the war and portraying the Nazi regime as more victim of the Allies and of Jews in particular. The early deniers focused more on minimizing the numbers of Jews murdered in the death camps like Aushwitz-Birkenau, Treblinka, Buchenwald and others and on blaming those deaths to starvation and to the deprivations Nazi Germany experienced due to the Allies bombing campaigns. The initial focus was not on the gas chambers but rather explaining away the deaths and minimizing them and even equivocating them to the German deaths due to the Allies.
Over time their tactics changed more to denying that any Jews actually were murdered in the homicidal gas chambers at the death camps. The deniers focused on making claims that there was insufficient proof of wholesale slaughter (when in reality there has always been ample proof) and that the homicidal gas chambers were actually used for delousing prisoner’s clothes and property. Over time they went from printing pamphlets to whole books (usually published by neo-Nazi publishing houses) and to updating their presentation to having a pseudo-scholarly look to it by creating an “Institute” for historical research that publishes a “journal” (I hesitate to call it that since the “methods” used by the authors of the “articles” in this “journal” are nowhere near the historiographic bar for legitimate journals).
Dr. Lipstadt does an amazing effort to expose these people for who they really are: Antisemites who simply are looking to white-wash Germany’s crimes committed during World War 2 (particularly in reference to the Holocaust) and to bolster their false claims that Israel (and Jews in general) are trying to pull a “fast one” over the rest of the world. These people cherry pick their facts, misquote historical documents, or just fabricate lies to bolster their claims. Their behavior deserves to be derided by all - but yet they continue to attract like-minded neo-Nazis and Antisemites to them. What’s worse is that even those who are *NOT* neo-Nazis or Antisemitic sometimes fall into their traps and help promulgate their message unwittingly. The worst cases of these happens on university campuses where students and professors alike - who should have critical thinking skills - fail to realize that not all ideas or speech have merit and need to be defended.
I highly recommend this book to anyone who is interested in learning more about these deniers and their false messages and the danger they pose to historical accuracy and truth. We must be ever vigilant against them and call them out whenever they appear. Thank you Dr. Lipstadt for this wonderful work.
September 22, 2017
Deborah Lipstadt, for years the sworn enemy of Holocaust deniers, achieved even greater fame recently with the release of the film Denial (which was very good). The film tells the course of a libel trial against Lipstadt brought by the historian David Irving. The book that Irving attacked is this one; Denying the Holocaust:The Growing Assault on Truth and Memory.
I knew of David Irving before I read this book and I'd heard of Holocaust deniers. But the extent of this vilest of historical distortions had grown to an astonishing extent and is brilliantly catalogued here in this book. What is even more astonishing is that the most notable perpetrators of this evil are academics, many from top universities, historians of considerable reputation. That they can deny that, for example, that concentration camps, gas chambers, Zyklon B and so on actually existed when the weight of evidence is so overwhelming beggars belief. When challenged, they claim the right to freedom of speech.
It is, of course, not surprising that the vast majority of the deniers are anti-Semites. Some even have links to the Klu Klux Klan and other racist groups. Lipstadt chronicles all this dispassionately and refuses to sensationalise. She lets the facts speak for themselves. I myself once tweeted enthusiastically about the brilliant Hungarian film Son of Saul and received a reply from a denier claiming that most people who died in Auschwitz were not Jews but Russian prisoners of war and those who died did so died of disease and malnutrition brought about by extreme conditions of war. I reported the Tweet and it was removed.
Holocaust denial is a crime in European Union countries (most) and elsewhere and, in my view, should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. We owe a great deal to Deborah Lipstadt for her endless work and research in bringing these dreadful people to the world's attention.
David Lowther. Author of The Blue Pencil, Liberating Belsen, Two Families at War and The Summer of '39, all published by Sacristy Press.
I knew of David Irving before I read this book and I'd heard of Holocaust deniers. But the extent of this vilest of historical distortions had grown to an astonishing extent and is brilliantly catalogued here in this book. What is even more astonishing is that the most notable perpetrators of this evil are academics, many from top universities, historians of considerable reputation. That they can deny that, for example, that concentration camps, gas chambers, Zyklon B and so on actually existed when the weight of evidence is so overwhelming beggars belief. When challenged, they claim the right to freedom of speech.
It is, of course, not surprising that the vast majority of the deniers are anti-Semites. Some even have links to the Klu Klux Klan and other racist groups. Lipstadt chronicles all this dispassionately and refuses to sensationalise. She lets the facts speak for themselves. I myself once tweeted enthusiastically about the brilliant Hungarian film Son of Saul and received a reply from a denier claiming that most people who died in Auschwitz were not Jews but Russian prisoners of war and those who died did so died of disease and malnutrition brought about by extreme conditions of war. I reported the Tweet and it was removed.
Holocaust denial is a crime in European Union countries (most) and elsewhere and, in my view, should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. We owe a great deal to Deborah Lipstadt for her endless work and research in bringing these dreadful people to the world's attention.
David Lowther. Author of The Blue Pencil, Liberating Belsen, Two Families at War and The Summer of '39, all published by Sacristy Press.
September 21, 2012
There was a lot of good info in here, but Lipstadt falls into the trap repeatedly throughout the book of making ad hominem attacks against all Holocaust deniers, a claim which, ironically enough, she constantly accuses the very same deniers of doing. Yes, a lot (and maybe even most) Holocaust deniers are white supremacists who hate Jews, but that doesn't mean this discussion can't be engaged with an academic tone and intellectual honesty. She compares Holocaust deniers to Flat Earthers, which isn't a fair comparison since one topic deals with history and the other is science. Science deals in objectivity, observation, and theorizing. History is subjective and under constant revision, depending on the people writing it.
By no means am I saying that the Holocaust didn't happen, but the event has turned into propaganda machine for Israel and it's tough to determine what actually happened. Authors like Norman Finkelstein have shed some light on this.
By no means am I saying that the Holocaust didn't happen, but the event has turned into propaganda machine for Israel and it's tough to determine what actually happened. Authors like Norman Finkelstein have shed some light on this.
October 5, 2016
A well-argued and passionately felt examination of the growth of Holocaust denial. This is in no respects a history of the Holocaust nor a refutation of the "arguments" of those who seek to deny it ever happened. Instead it seeks to trace the growth of Holocause denial and the way it has spread through its use of half-truths, distortions, outright lies and plain ignorance from half-baked theorist to half-baked theorist, each eagerly grasping at straws in support of their crackpot ideas and firmly ignoring the major planks on which our knowledge of the FACT of the Holocaust is built.
Read this and see how far men who claim to be intelligent can sink in the pursuit of their nasty little obsessions.
A highly worthwhile read for anyone interested in the history of the Second World War and for the uses and abuses of the history in the years since the war ended.
Read this and see how far men who claim to be intelligent can sink in the pursuit of their nasty little obsessions.
A highly worthwhile read for anyone interested in the history of the Second World War and for the uses and abuses of the history in the years since the war ended.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 103 reviews