That Religious Studies Website


Race and Racism

Applied ethics

Recently added to the site

What is Truth?: An Introduction to Holocaust Denial Theory

Information: This article is a critical introduction to Holocaust denial theory, and the work of British 'historian' David Irving. A version of this article was originally published on the website www.faithnet.org.uk.

Introduction

In his 1977 book 'Hitler's War', 'historian' David Irving controversially claimed that up until 1943, Hitler knew nothing of the events known today as 'the Holocaust'. In particular, he argued that Hitler never ordered the systematic destruction of Jews across Europe. So confident was he of his thesis, that Irving offered £1000 for anyone who could produce evidence to suggest the contrary.

Picture of Deborah Lipstadt and David IrvingIn January 2000, Irving sued American academic Deborah Lipstadt after she claimed in her book Denying the Holocaust: The Growing Assault on Truth and Memory (1993) that he was a 'holocaust denier'. However, Irving lost the case, and in summing up his judgement was described by Mr. Justice Gray as, 'anti-Semitic, racist... [and someone who had] "deliberately misrepresented and manipulated historical evidence"' (O'Neill B., Irving? Let the guy go home [Bracket mine]). Irvine not only lost his academic credibility, but was also bankrupted to the tune of £3m. He since then also spent time in prison in Austria for claiming there had been no gas chambers at Auschwitz, in speeches he made there in 1989 (see Holocaust denier Irving is jailed, BBC News) [1].

Yet prior to all this, Irving had been praised by some academics for his 'good scholarship', and had himself even attacked other historians for their lack of intellectual effort when researching the events of 'the Holocaust'. So how did this once seemingly respected World War II historian (he penned a series of bestsellers on the subject), deem it possible (and credible) to deny an event which is now accepted without question by almost everyone as an historical fact, so much so that it has indelibly scarred the collective European (and global) consciousness?

Holocaust revisionism and the 'real historians'

Irving (and those who believe the same as he does concerning the event now known globally as 'the Holocaust'), regard themselves as champions of 'real history'. This means that Irving and other 'Holocaust' deniers, believe that what is commonly accepted by most people to be the events of 'the Holocaust', is simply untrue (or based on half-truths):

'According to the deniers, the Nazis did not murder six million Jews, the notion of homicidal gas chambers is a myth, and any deaths of Jews that did occur under the Nazis were... not of systematic persecution and state-organised mass murder. Deniers dismiss all assertions that the Holocaust took place as conscious fabrications, or as psychotic delusions. Some even claim that Hitler was the best friend the Jews had in Germany, and that he actively worked to protect them. According to deniers, Jews have perpetrated this hoax about the Holocaust on the world in order to gain political and financial advantage, and it was in fact Germany that was the true victim in World War Two.' (Lipstadt D., Denying the Holocaust)

The main gate at the former nazi death camp of BirkenauAlthough there is substantial evidence to show that millions of Jews were systematically killed by the Nazis, Holocaust deniers claim that much of this evidence has been forged by those working for the global Jewish population. Prior to the publication of Irving's book 'Hitler's War', a 1974 pseudo-academic booklet 'Did Six Million Really Die?', dismissed the idea of Nazi concentration camps, 'as "mythology", [rejected] the Diary of Anne Frank as a hoax and [claimed] Jews were not exterminated but rather emigrated from Nazi Germany with the help of a benevolent government' (Berg R., The fight against Holocaust denial [Brackets mine]).

Deniers also claim that the 'gas chambers' were either delousing rooms, morgues, or even secretly built after the war, and that so-called confessions from Nazi soldiers about their 'crimes' were actually given as a result of torture (or the fear of torture). As such, their testimonies about their role in 'the Holocaust' are to be disregarded. Irving himself grounds a significant part of his 'holocaust revisionism' on the notion that no document containing Hitler's so-called 'final solution' order has ever been found, and as such this is a good reason for wanting to revise our understanding of what we claim to know about 'the Holocaust' [2].

'I THINK schools should concentrate on real history, and not play any part in the Holocaust industry'; the 'industry' being in his view the required learning about, and remembrance of, 'the Holocaust event' in schools, through trips and visiting speakers etc.' (David Irving, taken from his website)

Advertisement

Holocaust denial and 'real histories': A critical evaluation

Although Holocaust denial is (and Holocaust deniers are) deemed by many to be racist, it is not a crime in the UK to deny that the 'Holocaust' actually occurred. There is also the on-going debate concerning the place of free-speech in this matter, and whether one can refuse Holocaust deniers a voice:

'We don't have laws against other kinds of spoken craziness. If you're a medical quack and you hurt someone, there's a law against that. But if you're a medical quack and you stand on the street corner preaching that you have an elixir that cures cancer and saves lives, no one throws you in jail.' (Lipstadt quoted by O'Neill, Irving? Let the guy go home)

However, no matter how abhorrent (or maybe not) one finds Holocaust denial, it has raised some significant issues which need to be addressed by western societies, which are now seemingly more than ever intoxicated by post-modernism.

Post-modernism is a term used to describe cultural trends in western societies, which challenge and reject any notions of absolute truth.

First and foremost is the issue of what the 'Truth' is, regarding the events known as 'the Holocaust'. Now there is no doubt in my mind that as far as the evidence is concerned, millions of Jews were systematically killed by Nazis (with full knowledge of Hitler) in World War II, and that Irving has rightly been condemned for twisting the 'facts':

'The number of deniers and the amount of denial literature is miniscule compared with the serious literature, not only the memoirs but the history books, the specialist books, and books which cater for every age group on the Holocaust.' (Sir Martin Gilbert quoted by Berg in The fight against Holocaust denial)

Drawing of someone whispering to someone else in a computerYet in saying this, Irving shows how easy it is for people to start a version of historical Chinese-whispers, which can lead to rather different versions of events being promoted as 'Truth' than might have originally occurred. For people such as Kate Taylor, the worry is that, 'as survivors are increasingly dying out it is much easier to hijack history for whatever cause or purpose' (Kate Taylor quoted by Berg in The fight against Holocaust denial). Furthermore, in a world where pseudo-knowledge can be easily propagated via the Internet, we need to be ever more vigilant in what we allow ourselves (and our children) to believe is the 'truth':

'With the internet, you've got to be fairly well-educated to see through what revisionist websites are trying to do... I think as soon as you look at them closely you can work it out, but part of the problem that we find is teachers will send pupils off to do internet research and not guide them to specific sites.' (Kay Andrews quoted by Berg in The fight against Holocaust denial)

Maybe more than ever before, it is important for people to ask questions and do their own research when being confronted with 'the so-called facts' of the matter. In this it seems Irving's charge to avoid intellectual laziness is poignant; especially in western societies where often groups of people as a whole, are judged by the actions of a minority within (and outside of) them (for example see Muslims urged to combat fanatics, BBC News).

Furthermore, Postmodernist philosophers such as Michel Foucault (1926-84) have drawn attention to the way academics operate within a narrow system of textual analysis and criticism, and that variant readings of texts (and history) are often side-lined by them when they do not fit within their (or the 'official') reading of events. Irving's charge that there is 'another side' to a rather familiar coin, is a call to take this idea seriously. Although we might balk at Irving's conclusions, we cannot deny his right to challenge the 'official view' of things (as many others have done under less controversial circumstances).

Final Thoughts

Although one may find Irving's views distasteful, he does challenge us to re-consider our attitude to what he (rightly, as far as I am concerned) calls 'the Holocaust industry'. This is not to say we should agree with him that there was no such thing as ' The Holocaust'. Rather, it should remind us that we can too easily become over-familiar and santise things, which made hardened soldiers cry when they saw they saw the aftermath of them. As such, taking a fresh look at things from a different perspective might be quite sobering at times. However, that's not to say that the 'other side' of the coin as far as the Holocaust is concerned, is that there was no Holocaust!.

It is often said that the first casualty of war is truth. As such, it might not always be easy to establish exactly what went on, where it happened and with whose authority during times of conflict. However, that's not to say we cannot know anything about what goes on during times of war. In terms of World War II, and from the evidence we have, it seems the way Hitler and the Nazis conducted themselves during the war is contrary to the version of events Irving proposes. There is simply too much evidence and too many witnesses to take seriously the suggestion that for over 60 years now, most people in the world have been wrong about the true nature of events which took place between 1939-1945.

'I am not interested in debating with Holocaust deniers... You wouldn't ask a scientist to debate with someone who thinks the Earth is flat. They are not historians, they are liars. Debating them would be nonsensical.' (Lipstadt quoted by O'Neill in Irving? Let the guy go home)

David Irving on the Holocaust

Notes

[1] It is a crime in Austria and Germany to deny the events of the Holocaust. Despite being alleged to have once argued the contrary, Irving is now said to claim that there were gas chambers at Auschwitz (O'Neill B., 'Irving? Let the guy go home', URL: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4578534.stm).

[2] In response to claims such as this Lipstadt argues that if documents were forged to suggest that Hitler authorised a 'final solution' by which to exterminate European Jews, why these so-called talented forgers failed to produce, 'the one piece of paper that deniers demand as 'proof' that genocide took place under the Third Reich - an order from Hitler authorising the destruction of the Jews' (Lipstadt D., Denying the Holocaust, (URL: http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/genocide/deniers_01.shtml).


Back to top