Legitimizing the Deniers: the Role of Ordinary Historians in Holocaust Denial

by M. J.

A student essay from Dr. Elliot Neaman's History 210 class (historical methods - fall 1997)

The Institute for Historical Review claims to be an organization devoted to non - partisan historical revisionism, but quick perusal of their catalogue of their publishing outlet, the Noontide Press, shows that they have a definite agenda. Roughly one third of the entire catalogue is devoted to books which strive to disprove one of the most gruesome events of the Twentieth Century, the extermination of the Jews of Europe at the hands of the Nazis.

The Noontide Press carries books that are unrelated to this topic for a number of reasons. They say that they carry these books because they are a legitimate academic publishing company. In their pamphlets, the Institute says that "[...] [historical] revisionism promotes historical awareness and inter - national understanding." (Pamphlet: Weber 1994) By carrying these seemingly innocent, non - Holocaust related books, the Institute is seeking to avoid being accused of having an anti - Semitic agenda, a charge they could not avoid if they published only those books which deny that the Holocaust ever happened.

But in the end, these claims of impartiality are negated when we examine the other books they carry. These books, even though they seem like they have nothing to do with the Holocaust, help the Institute in their quest to draw more attention to Holocaust denial.

I selected four books for a critical evaluation of their contents: Pearl Harbor, the Story of the Secret War by George Morgenstern, Living by the Sword - America and Israel in the Middle East, by Stephen Green, Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace, a series of essays edited by Harry Elmer Barnes, and lastly, Barnes' pamphlet Who Started the First World War? I selected these titles in order to give myself a fair and broad overview of the non - Holocaust denial related books in the Institute's catalogue.

When I analyzed the content of each of these books, I discovered that these books had more in common with the Holocaust denial books than I originally thought. All of these books attempt to do the same thing, absolving Germany of its actions in both world wars by implicating America and its allies as the real aggressors, and defaming the Jewish people through the state of Israel. All of this supports the claims of the deniers that the Holocaust was a massive hoax perpetrated by the Jewish people on the innocent Germans, with the help of the media, both wittingly and unwittingly.

None of these authors, with the exception of Barnes, are Holocaust deniers themselves. If they are, they are not outspoken about it and it is not present anywhere within their writings. Harry Elmer Barnes, the lone exception in this study, joined the ranks of the deniers in his later years, but at the time of the publishing of his book (which first went to press in 1953) and his pamphlet (of which no original publishing date is given, although since the bulk of his world war one writings were done in the decade after the war it is safe to assume it was written sometime during the twenties) he had not yet been exposed to Holocaust denial. At the time, he was still a respected academic whose work was required reading at prestigious universities such as Harvard and Columbia. (Lipstadt 67)

The other two authors I have selected are not linked with holocaust denial at all, except for the fact that they are published by the Institute. George Morgenstern was the editor for the Chicago Tribune for a long period of time around the middle of the century. Stephen Green, according to his biography on the dust jacket of his book, has done work for organizations such as the Council on Foreign Relations, the Carnegie Foundation, and the United Nations Association of the United States. (Green, dust jacket) Neither man is mentioned as being a Holocaust denier by Deborah Lipstadt in her seminal book on the denial activities of the IHR and others, Denying the Holocaust. (Lipstadt, et al.)

This excursion into the publishing of books which are more accessible to the mainstream should not be interpreted as an attempt to become a legitimate publishing house. The IHR still has an agenda. As was mentioned earlier, they have a large section of books on Holocaust denial, which is separate from the rest of the books they offer. The fact that they singled out this category and none others (they don't have a separate section for books on the first World War for example) says a lot. With every order of books they ship out, the IHR pamphlets on Holocaust denial with the package. I received three or four of these pamphlets myself. For the IHR, publishing books on topics other than the Holocaust seems to be an afterthought. It is clear that the topic of Holocaust denial is at the top of their agenda.

The IHR is likely to claim that because they publish so many books unrelated to the holocaust, they are not strictly confined to the field of holocaust denial, and more generally that they are not anti - Semites, a claim that has dogged them over the length of their troubled life span. At the heart of their argument is the belief that the Jews as a people are responsible for this cover up of mind boggling proportions, and the deniers feel only hate and resentment towards them (Lipstadt et al.) According to Deborah Lipstadt, the "[...] eight axioms that have come to serve as the founding principles of the[...]Institute for Historical Review and as the basic postulates for Holocaust denial" are based on the writings of Austin App, whose virulent anti - Semitism is well documented. (Lipstadt 86 - 87)

It is a bit more difficult to accuse the IHR of anti - Semitism when they publish such a diversity of books. The denial books don't seem to be based on hate when they are sold side by side with books whose research and conclusions seem reasonable. But these texts, which at first seemed so reasonable, are analyzed at length, they prove to be just as damning as the most venomous anti - Semitic Holocaust denial tract.

Each of the books described herein contribute to the Holocaust denial effort in its own way. The Germany described in these books, a peaceful nation goaded into war by its cruel and manipulative neighbors, clashes with the traditional image of Germany as a bloodthirsty aggressor. The demonization of Germany's enemies, combined with the absolution of Germany itself, makes it a bit easier to swallow the absurd notion that war time Germany was justified in its actions, and that nothing atrocious ever happened. The Israel described in these books, a heartless manipulator who runs roughshod over its neighbors, and gets away with numerous atrocities because the American media refuses to report it, and the American government refuses to let the United Nations do anything about it. All of this makes the ridiculous claims of the deniers more plausible to their audience.

I am not trying to prove or disprove any of the claims made in the books I am examining. I am critiquing neither the methodology of the authors nor their conclusions. I am however trying to illustrate how the IHR is using these seemingly innocent books to perpetrate their ludicrous claims that the Holocaust never happened.

In his book Pearl Harbor, the Story of the Secret War, George Morgenstern asserts that the "surprise attack" on Pearl Harbor wasn't a surprise at all. Roosevelt and other high ranking officials in both the Navy and the civilian government knew about the impending attack. They were also fully aware that America would soon be at war; in fact, they were the ones that planned that war.

In Morgenstern's version of the second World War, there was no doubt in anyone's mind prior to the bombing of Pearl Harbor that our nation was going to war with both Japan and Germany. He quotes a staff report that says "[...] when the United States becomes involved in a war with Germany, it will at the same time engage in war with Italy. In these circumstances, the possibility of a state of war arising between Japan and [the allies] must be taken into account." He concludes this paragraph with the following statement: "The important word was 'when.' There was no 'if.'" (Morgenstern 107)

Morgenstern makes it clear that the President was aware that all of this was happening. Later in the same chapter he quotes another report that the US would make an effort to bring Germany into the war. (Morgenstern 110) He also quotes a "high ranking officer" as saying that president Roosevelt was well aware of what the military was planning. (Morgenstern 113) This view of America as the aggressor differs greatly from most accounts which describe Germany's blitzkrieg invasions of Poland and Czechoslovakia. IN this scenario Germany is not very aggressive, and seemingly helpless at the hands of the US and its allies.

Morgenstern does concede that the Nazis were barbarous war mongers; in the introductory chapter he describes the fascist governments of Germany and Italy as "totalitarian[...] with scurvy and cutthroat leadership[...] " and an army of "[...] brutal efficiency." (Morgenstern 4) But he immediately amends those statements with an almost apologetic statement . "On the other hand," he writes, "the forces in opposition were hardly able to pin the sanctions of high minded morality and abstract justice to their banners!" (Morgenstern 4) In other words, sure the Nazis were bad, but the Americans and their allies were just as bad.

This equation, where the allies are just as bad as the Nazis is, according to Deborah Lipstadt, a "central argument for [the deniers] who try to relativize the Holocaust," (Lipstadt 42)

Morgenstern brings up several other points that attempt to relativize the Germans' role in World War Two. On the subject of the invasion of Poland, he describes the Polish government as being corrupt, and goes on to claim that Poland was never anything more than a token excuse for the British and the Russians to go to war.

Further along, in chapter 7, Morgenstern quotes a Navy Admiral as saying "[...]the Navy knew it was committing overt acts which could provoke Germany to declare war." He was further quoted as saying "Adolph Hitler has every excuse to in the world to declare war on us now if he were of a mind to." (Morgenstern 90)

But Hitler didn't declare war, we did. Which, if Mr. Morgenstern can be believed, leads us to think that Hitler didn't have plans for conquest. Does that mean he also didn't have plans to exterminate the whole Jewish race?

In his book Living by the Sword, Stephen Green paints a picture of Israel as an evil empire founded on betrayal and deception. According to green, Israel has trampled over every single rule, agreement, treaty and border it has ever agreed on or been involved in. The Israel of Green’s book is a nation of terrorists and heartless killers. In Green’s view, Israel also wields a tremendous amount of power behind the scenes in Washington, who helps Israel pull of their scams by covering up for them. When Israel violates a treaty or shoots down a commercial airliner, Washington is there to assist them in any way they need, and the media of the nation and the rest of the neutral world.

Because Israel is a Jewish nation, once the deniers have their audience convinced that they are capable of such grand deceptions, it is a bit easier to legitimize the arguments of the Holocaust deniers. If Israel is capable of covering up their transgressions in the middle east, then it is not unreasonable to think that they are capable of fabricating the Holocaust as well.

It is interesting that the Institute for Historical Review doesn't even publish this work; it is published by a small company named Amana Books. But it is not surprising; the Israel presented in this book is the Israel that the IHR wants the world to believe in, an Israel capable of any deception.

Green's approach is to present to alleged Israeli misdeeds from the perspective of the victims and innocent parties, such as the US. servicemen sent over to keep peace in the region. This serves to lessen the degree of sympathy it is possible to have for the Israelis. And since the Israelis are such monsters (or so Mr. Green would have us believe), it is not a big leap to accuse all Jews of being such monsters, capable of pulling off what the IHR claims is the hoax of the century.

Green includes this quote to reinforce this image of the Israelis: "If we judge the Israeli soldiers by the same basis which we judged the criminals of the second World War, they would all be criminals of war." The fact that he seems to acknowledge the guilt of the Nazis in this quote indicates that he is not a denier himself, but this still helps the deniers in their cause. This relativising tendency is common among Holocaust deniers, as I have pointed out earlier. (Lipstadt 42)

Green also takes the time to point out America's role in alleged Israel misdeeds. In describing an incident where a Libyan passenger jet was shot down by Israeli pilots, Green implies that the United States was involved in covering up the whole incident:

"Official US. reaction to the incident was swift and vague. President Richard Nixon arranged for the delivery of [a] message of condolence to Colonel Mohammar al - Qaddafi, Libya's head of state[...] . A State Department spokesman, asked to elaborate on the administration's feelings about the incident, had 'no further comment.' Neither Nixon's nor Rogers' messages mentioned who had shot down the plane. Apparently in Washington, as in Tel Aviv, the official sorrow and dismay were restrained." (Green 70)

The paragraph seems to be implying that officials in Washington were stonewalling reporters, trying to help Israel in keeping the spin from this story from being too negative. Later in the chapter, he provides a quote from a witness of the whole event that definitely hints of a cover - up: "I was told[...]to say that the curtains were lowered, but they were not." (The status of the curtains refers to a key aspect of the confessions of the Israeli pilots involved in the incident.

In a side note to the tragedy, Green writes that "while they searched for [surveillance cameras in the wreckage of the plane], IDF [Israeli Defense Force] soldiers looted the personal belongings of the passengers." (Green 74) This passage seems to be included only to enhance the goulishness of the Israelis, and perhaps through them, all Jews.

The bottom line of this book, that Israel is capable of pulling off any atrocity and getting away with it is exactly the same message that the Holocaust deniers present in their writings. It is no wonder that the IHR has decided to distribute this book.

Harry Barnes is the editor of Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace, and he contributes two essays to it. The book is a virtual who's who of post World War Two revisionists, but I chose to focus on Barnes' first essay, entitled "Revisionism and the Historical Blackout."

Barnes' approach to presenting Germany's role in the conflict is to minimize it as much as possible. He starts off by accusing America of Nazi - esque intellectual suppression, saying "It is no exaggeration to say that the American smearbund, operating through newspaper editors and columnists, "hatchet men" book reviewers, radio commentators pressure - group intrigue and espionage, and academic pressures and fears, has accomplished about as much in the way of intimidating honest intellectuals in this country as Hitler, Goebbles, Himmler, the Gestapo, and concentration camps were able to do in Nazi Germany." ("Perpetual War" 12)

While Barnes occasionally acknowledges that Hitler was in fact a dictator and a monster, he still manages to sow the seeds of doubt. If America was as bad as Nazi Germany, something that Barnes constantly alludes to, is it possible that the American Propaganda Machine, in association with the European Jewry, faked the Holocaust?

Obviously it is not possible, but one would be hard pressed to come to that conclusion after reading more of Barnes' writing. He goes into further detail about the "American propaganda machine": "[...] in the US., with almost complete freedom of press, speech and information down to the end of 1941, great numbers of Americans followed the official propaganda line with no compulsion whatsoever[...] And this situation has continued since 1945, though of course the public has been less able to get the truth from the avenues of information since V - J Day than it was before Pearl Harbor." ("Perpetual War" 13)

Clearly, the implication is that the Nazi - esque American propaganda machine continues to churn out lies to this day. Barnes never addressees the topic of Holocaust denial directly, but the implications this passage has for the Holocaust deniers is tremendous. If the propaganda machine continues to produce the official word and the public continues to gobble it up, then it stands to reason that they might have had a hand in fabricating the Holocaust.

Barnes writes that "powerful pressure groups have also found the mythology helpful in diverting attention away from their own role in national and world calamity." Once again, Barnes has struck a blow for Holocaust deniers without actually addressing anyone by name. He never comes right out and says it, but the Jews (as defined by the IHR and other extreme right wing, anti - Semitic revisionists) certainly fit this mold.

Whether Barnes was consciously trying to make a case for Holocaust denial or not when he wrote this doesn't matter. The fact is that the IHR has co - opted this material, and is using it for their own ends.

Another piece of early Barnes writing has been seized by the IHR as well. In his pamphlet Who Started the First World War?, Barnes talks about various countries' political policies during the first world war. While it seems like a stretch to link this topic with Holocaust denial, Barnes shows us exactly how it can be done.

Hitler came to power while his country was at a low point. It was reeling from the beating it took in World War One, and the punishment they received from the allied forces who drew up the treaty of Versailles. Popular opinion is that Germany had it coming, but Barnes immediately puts forth a different claim, that Germany, along with their chief ally Austria wasn't so bad after all.

He writes: "[...]what the Serbs regarded as the aggressive and utterly unjustifiable annexation of Bosnia by Austria in 1908[...] . had actually been suggested by Serbia's supposed protector, Russia. Throughout the period from 1912 to 1914, Austria, in large part in self - defense against the Russo - Balkan intrigues led by [Russian officials], became more active and aggressive in regard to the Balkans" (Barnes 1) Furthermore, "In her aggression towards Serbia at this time, Austria had acted without the instigation or encouragement of Germany. In fact, Germany was influenced by Baron Von Griesinger, the pro - Serbian German minister in Belgrade, and had on two occasions moved to restrain Austria."

These statements affect how the reader views the next 40 years. In the past, Austria and Germany were always made out to be the aggressors, while Russia, Britain and France were the innocent parties drawn in by Germany and Austria's aggression. But according to Barnes, it was Germany and Austria who were the innocent parties, lured into war by the scheming of the Russians. According to Barnes, Germany only wanted peace. In light of this conclusion, the attempts of the deniers to claim that Germany was non - aggressive during World War Two seems a bit more plausible (but still completely untrue).

Harry Elmer Barnes is a notorious German apologist; even in the light of most of the evidence he maintained that '[...] Hitler's demands [at the outset of World War II] were the most reasonable of all[...] " (Lipstadt 68) He is also quoted as saying that the Kaiser, like Hitler twenty years later, worked hard to avoid war. The Kaiser failed to prevent the outbreak of war because of the machinations of Russian militarists, who he describes as being a bit sneaky and underhanded, "aspiring, but cowardly..." (Barnes 5)

Barnes also accuses France of assisting Russia in their devious activities in every way they could, including promising ". . full French aid in any event." (Barnes 5) The event that Barnes seems to be alluding to is war.

Clearly, according to Barnes, Germany is the innocent victim, and France, Russia and their allies (including Britain and America) are the ones responsible for the war. This contradicts most other accounts of the time, but it fits quite nicely into the world view that the IHR presents in its material.

In the deniers' view of the world, Germany has the victim of a titanic conspiracy that has been going on since the beginning of the century. The Jewish people, both in Israel and abroad, are capable of any perfidy and have the means to cover up or fabricate any event they desire. America is willing to help them in this, in any way possible. IN this world, a global conspiracy to fool the people into thinking 6 million Jews were slaughtered in German death camps doesn't seem to improbable.

All of this is, of course, nonsense. The sheer absurdity of the Holocaust deniers' claims has been proven on countless occasions. But Holocaust denial refuses to go away. People still buy into what the IHR is selling, and the fact that legitimate historians are willing to let the IHR publish their work helps nothing.

Whether or not the authors support the cause that the IHR champions, their work has a profound effect on the Holocaust denial movement. Every time someone picks up one of these volumes and comes to the conclusion that the research that went into the books was sound, and that the author raises some valid points, they are that much closer to making the same conclusion about holocaust denial itself.

Deniers have been struggling for legitimacy for years now. In the past they have been condemned as a fringe group of right wing fanatics (and rightly so!) but they are slowly inching their way towards the center of the spectrum, and mainstream recognition. And these authors, whether they realize it or not, are helping them achieve this. These same authors are also helping to eradicate one of the most horrific events in all of human history.

When Deborah Lipstadt was asked to appear on a talk show with Holocaust deniers, she turned down the offer, because, in her own words, "I would not appear with them [because] to do so would give them a legitimacy and a stature which they do not deserve." (Lipstadt 1) The Holocaust deniers should not be considered the other side of the debate because as Lipstadt and others have repeatedly emphasized, there is no other side. Yet the IHR continues to struggle for this recognition. And as more and more time goes by, more and more historians seem to be willing to support their cause, either through direct support, such as endorsing the IHR's views themselves, or through indirect support, as I have illustrated above. As long as this support continues, the assault against the memory of one of the most horrific events in all of human history will continue, unabated.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Barnes, Harry Elmer Who Started the First World War? Newport Beach: Institute for Historical Review 1984

Barnes, Harry Elmer Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace Newport Beach: Institute for Historical Review 1993

Green, Stephen Living by the Sword: America and Israel in the Middle East Vermont: Amana Books 1988

Lipstadt, Deborah Denying the Holocaust: The Growing Assault on Truth and Memory New York: Macmillan, Inc. 1993

Morgenstern, George Pearl Harbor: The Story of the Secret War Newport Beach: Institute for Historical Review 1991