Here's the text that Google Preview gives of the book (that I've screen-captured and OCRed).
There's no attempt to really deal with revisionist arguments other than to smear them with name calling. It's just a given that the "Holocaust" happened and if you deny it then you're likely an anti-semite and/or a neo-Nazi with problems.
Holocaust and Genocidal Denial.
A Contextual Perspective.
Edited by Paul Behrens, Olaf Jensen, Nicholas Terry.
© 2017 – Routledge.
List of contributors.
PAUL BEHRENS. NICHOLAS TERRY AND OLAF JENSEN
Development and concept of genocide denial.
1 Alexander Ratcliffe: British Holocaust denial in embryo — MARK HOBBS
2 Countering Holocaust denial in relation to the Nuremberg trials — MICHAEL SLATER
3 Holocaust denial in the age of web 2.0: negationist discourse since the Irving-Lipstadt trial — NICHOLAS TERRY
Holocaust and genocide denial around the world.
4 Silence and denial in Gulag testimonies: listening for the unspeakable — ELISABETH ANSTETT
5 The presence of the past: on the significance of the Holocaust and the criminalisation of its negation in the Federal Republic of Germany — CHRISTIAN MENTEL
The prohibition of 'glorification of National Socialism' as an addition to the criminal provision on genocide denial: (Sect. 130 (4) of the German Criminal Code — BJORN ELBERLING AND ALEXANDER HOFFMANN
7 Reckoning with the past?: Rwanda's revised Genocide Ideology Law and international human rights law on freedom of expression — SEJAL PARMAR
8 A view of the impact of genocide denial laws in Rwanda — NIAMH BARRY
9 Confronting genocide denial: using the law as a tool in combating genocide denial in Rwanda — FREDA KABATSI
10 Srebrenica and genocide denial in the former Yugoslavia: what has the ICTY done to address it? — DEJANA RADISAVUEVIC AND MARTIN PETROV
11 Holocaust denial in Iran : Ahmadinejad, the 2006 Holocaust conference and international law — PAUL BEHRENS
12 A centenary of denial: the case of the Armenian genocide — NARINE GHAZARYAN
PART III Dealing with Holocaust and genocide denial.
13 From introduction to implementation: first steps of the EU Framework Decision 2008/913/JHA against racism and xenophobia — PAOLO LOBBA
14 Combating genocide denial via law: elat des lieux of anti-denial legislation — CAROLINE FOURNET AND CLOTILDE PEGORIER
15 Why not the law? Options for dealing with genocide and Holocaust denial — PAUL BEHRENS
Concluding thoughts — PAUl BEHRENS, NICHOlAS TERRY ANO Ol. AF JENSEN
Paul Behrens, Nicholas Terry, Olaf Jensen.
The facts of the Holocaust are clear; the suffering of its millions of victims is beyond reasonable dispute. It is evidenced by the words and writings of those who escaped the machinery of death, and indeed of those who devised it and kept it in running order. The documentary and architectural proof is overwhelming. Films demonstrate the conditions of the concentration camps; there are witness statements of those who liberated Bergen-Belsen, Auschwitz and the other places in which the human capacity for evil had been given a new definition.
As if that were not enough, the events have been subjected to judicial examination - ranging from the trial of the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg to trials in the 21st century; proceedings in which the killings, torture and mistreatment received meticulous examination and had to withstand scrutiny under adversarial systems.
That is not only true of the Holocaust: other instances of mass violence, in particular the killing of an estimated 800,000 Tutsis in Rwanda in 1994 and the massacre of some 7,000 Bosnian Muslims at Srebrenica in 1995, are equally well documented, and they, too, were subjected to examination in courtroom settings, where exacting standards for the evaluation of evidence were applied by international criminal tribunals.
In light of this, it is legitimate to ask why Holocaust and, ...
British Holocaust denial in embryo Mark Hobbs.
Exploring the roots of Holocaust denial is a valuable endeavour because it reveals a great deal about the development of 'historical revisionism' by far right groups and individuals. This chapter will examine the antecedents of British Holocaust negationism in the United Kingdom during the Second World War from an historical perspective. As a 'bystander' nation, Britain, with its close proximity to occupied Europe, proves to be a useful case study because individuals were denying Nazi crimes committed against European Jews whilst genocide was taking place. However, it was not in Britain that the first deniers were to be found; clearly the first to deny the atrocities against the Jews of Europe were the Nazis themselves. As Heinrich Himmler slated in a secret Posen speech in October 1943, the final solution was to be a 'never to be written' page of glory in Germany's great history. 1 His words were matched with action, and evidenced by the destruction of records, dismantling of killing facilities and excavations of mass graves as the Soviet Army marched into Eastern Europe. 2
This chapter centres on the British Second World War publications of Alexander Ratcliffe, a supporter of fascism, anti- .....
... was an intrinsic part of the public and governmental discourses regarding Jews in the United Kingdom. 5 Establishing legal definitions or social scientific classifications and then imposing them on a given individual or form of denial literature in their specific historical context is a complex endeavour. The law is situated in the practice of justice and prosecution, verdicts of guilty or not, whereas for the historian the classification of denial is positioned in the scholastic endeavour of explaining and contextualising. Understanding the law in relation to Holocaust denial in a given country is extremely valuable for the historian, as it not only delineates the legal framework in which denial is understood and judged, but it also reveals a great deal about a country's approach to denial in its definition (or lack of such) within that legal system.
When thinking about individuals like Ratcliffe and Reed it is necessary to begin by posing four questions: first, what do we understand as ' Holocaust denial" in the material being " examined? Second. in what context is Holocaust denial being placed? Third, what form is the denial taking. how were the arguments presented and what link does it have to contemporary denial? Fourth, what can we learn from this type of prototype denial? In what follows I explore these questions and think about the value of using historical methods to understand the context in which denial was formed and also how these early forms of denial help us better understand its relationship with contemporary Holocaust denial.
It is clear that 'Holocaust denial' is a misnomer and anachronistic, as the term 'holocaust' had not yet been mobilised into the cohesive and monolithic concept of the 'Holocaust' we understand today. It is therefore important not to be teleological, and to understand that what is being denied are the reports of massacres against Jews, persecution of the Jews and the idea that a mass extermination or the Jews of Europe was taking place. 6 This early denial focused on the murder of Jews specifically rather than other victimised groups. It is significant that individuals like Reed and Ratcliffe were giving Nazi crimes and persecutions a distinctly Jewish dimension before the British government, legal professionals and historians had fully understood the nature of Nazi anti-Semitism and the forces driving the final solution. As Andrew Sharf explains, this lack of understanding about the nature of the crimes committed against the Jews of Europe, not just in Germany, and the suffering inflicted upon them, was in part due to an 'inability to grasp the meaning of suffering wholly outside one's immediate experience and for which there was little historical precedent', Additionally, as Sharf also notes, such attitudes were also shaped by the 'widespread dislike of Jews in England' 7
During the Second World War the British government adopted a policy of playing down the distinct Jewish dimension of Nazi crimes, As Tony Kushner emphasises, the British government maintained a strong desire not to 'blend its its universalist principles - of winning the war first and refusing to discriminate in favour of the persecuted Jews'. 8 In essence, as Kushner demonstrates, the reason for this thinking was born out of a fear of public unrest if unassimilated Jews were rescued and brought to Britain. 9 Kushner also explains how Britain objected to 'stressing the Jewish aspects of the impact of the Nazi crimes, and the implications this had for rescue' by the War Refugee Board. 10 It is also salient to highlight the Ministry of Information's explicit decree in 1941 which talked of the presentation of Nazi brutality and staled 'horror stuff [...] must be used very sparingly and must always deal with treatment of indisputably innocent people. Not with violent political opponents. And not with Jews'. 11 Ratcliffe therefore represented the fears of the British government in relation to the perceived potential of anti-Semitic outbursts. While the British government's fears about anti-Semitism are evident from the material that Ratcliffe was publishing, it is clear that his denial of Jewish suffering was another matter.
Ratcliffe focused specifically on Jewish atrocity stories, and was at odds with the British government's stance of relative silence or promotion of a narrative of universal suffering. 12 Thus in order to assess the material from Ratcliffe 11 must be understood that current understanding of the Holocaust cannot be brought to bear, and instead the material should be viewed in the context of wartime Britain, the context of the time, and within the culture of anti-Semitism, paralysis regarding questions of rescue, a lack of specific and corroborative detail, and a lack of understanding of the unprecedented nature of the crimes that were taking place.
Context and historicisation help understand the shape and form of negation during, and in the immediate aftermath of, the Second World War. Denial was not being published in literature devoted entirely to Nazi crimes against the Jews. Denial did not take the form with which we are familiar in contemporary society (for example, Arthur Butz's The Hoax of the Twentieth Century: The Case Against the Presumed Extermination of European Jewry, or Richard Verrall's Did Six Million Really Die? 13). Indeed, it seems today as if Holocaust denial is the main aspect of the far right 'history' and conspiracy theory, and that other conspiracy theories about Jews stem from this idea rather than the other way around. These early examples of denial are texts that predominantly promoted pre-existing, pre-war, nineteenth- century anti-Semitic conspiracy theories. 14 Oenial of Nazi atrocities became absorbed into the remit of the conspiratorial anti-Semitic publications. For Ratcliffe, denial was the first line of argument and was attributable to his belief that the Jews were engaged in a programme of conspiracy and control of society. 15 Ratcliffe's primary aim was not solely directed at questioning the validity of the 'atrocity stories'; instead, he highlighted the supposed Jewish control of Britain and the ...
... Reed was more detailed in his dismissal of the Nazi genocide than Ratcliffe. In Lest We Regret. Reed quoted from several reports regarding the extermination of European Jews and sought to deconstruct them and disprove them. 31 Reed claimed that the Jews were using 'extermination stories' to aid them in creating a Jewish state in Palestine and linked the atrocities to the right-wing belief that the war was being fought for Jewish interests. When Anthony Eden, on 17 December 1942, confirmed reports about atrocities against the Jews in Europe and read a declaration of the Allied governments to the House of Commons in which he condemned 'in the strongest possible terms' the policy of extermination, 32 Reed replied to the statement as follows:
“We have made no graver mistake. We formally tell the Germans, from our House of Commons, that anything they may endure at our hands will be solely on behalf of the Jews! [...] We have lent our name to the threat of Jewish vengeance! 33
This tactic was expanded by later Holocaust deniers in order to present the suffering of other groups, especially the Germans, above those of Jews.
The idea that the war was fought for Jewish vengeance, interests or as a 'Jewish war' became a staple in the lexicon of Holocaust denial during the war, in its immediate aftermath, and in contemporary negationism and revisionism. 34 This notion proposed that the war was created and brought about by Jews to stop Hitler because of his persecution of the Jews in Germany, and as an epic clash between two races: the Aryan race and the Jewish race. 35 This idea became a stock trope of Holocaust deniers. 36 Reed also presented his theories about 'extermination stories' in a different way, choosing to focus on the word 'extermination' often used in British newspapers, Reed argued that the word was used 'habitually and without flinching' by the media and politicians, and that in 'a few years' time with the facts and figures, [we) will possess proof of the greatest example of mass-misinformation in history'. 37 This projection of what the future course of far right 'history' would entail, provided the template and mission for future deniers. Furthermore, Reed's objection to the use of the term 'extermination' was a semantic argument, focusing on the word rather than the actual events being described. 38 This method of focusing on definitions (for example, genocide) and semantics rather than the actual crimes themselves would become a stock tool of deniers. 39 While it is possible to argue Reed misinterpreted tile dimensions of Nazi persecution, it is dear that when his other anti-Semitic utterances are combined with his specific attacks on the reports in British newspapers and in the House of Commons, Reed was actively denying what was taking place in order to support his own anti-Semitic world view. For Reed the reports were the product of a Jewish conspiracy which appeared 'at the very moment victory loomed' in order to secure a Jewish state and ‘to open Palestine for many more [Jews] in breach of our pledge to the Arabs'. 40 This notion that the formation of the State of Israel was based on the Holocaust would become a standard trope of the Holocaust denier. Douglas Reed 's denial of 'extermination' reports, and Ratcliffe's rejection of 'atrocity stories', are linked by their shared attempts to undermine Jewish suffering and discredit the accounts that were emerging from occupied Europe and to perpetuate a Jewish world conspiracy which absorbed the new information into its remit. What is clear from examining these two individuals is that a lot is revealed about not only the antecedents of Holocaust denial but how we understand these roots and the link they share to the future course of Holocaust denial. One key belief shared by the two men was that once the war was over, these 'stories' would be disproved . This assumption could be viewed as an invitation to anti-Semites and the far right after the war to continue the fight against the 'stories', but also contains an unacknowledged realisation of the magnitude of what the Nazis were being accused of, and that such information was not going to be ignored after the war. This is something that has not been explored enough in the literature on Holocaust denial.
Reed and Ratcliffe presented and couched their arguments differently. Reed chose to approach the claims with a more detailed, analytical criticism of the reports appearing in the newspapers and sought to cast doubt on the reliability of the witnesses and language used. 41 Ratcliffe attacked the validity of the information emerging by dismissing it out of hand, as a Jewish fake, and was absorbed into the traditional anti-Semitic arguments espoused in his pamphlets and newspaper, The mechanisms used to attack the details at hand bear an overt symmetry to recent trends in Holocaust denial. Ratcliffe's attack on the photographs that were appearing would be used time ...
... symmetry to recent trends in Holocaust denial. Ratcliffe's attack on the photographs that were appearing would be used time and time again by deniers. 42 Ratcliffe's and Reed's attempts to downplay the number of individuals murdered has become a stock trope of the denial movement. Reed also attempted to negate the suffering of the Jews in favour of other groups, This mirrors the later tactics of deniers like David Irving and Richard Verrall to favour the suffering of Germans in Allied bombing raids, or Colin Jordan who equated the murder of British soldiers in Palestine in 1947 with the crimes of Adolf Eichmann. 43
The publications of Reed and Ratcliffe demonstrate how the initial arguments and tools to discredit the crimes of the Nazis against the Jews were used and expanded upon by the individuals who succeeded them. The link between Reed and far right individuals was looser than that of Ralcliffe. 44 Ratcliffe had overt links with Arnold Leese, the leader of the pre-war Imperial Fascist league and post-war editor of Gothic Ripples, a publication in which Leese would perpetuate the notion of a Jewish world conspiracy. Leese, considered the 'English Hitler', would tutor Colin Jordan and leave him his house to continue his legacy - 74 Princedale Road, which would become the headquarters of many of the neo-Nazi and fascist parties and movements throughout the late 1950s, 1960s and early 1970s. 45 Ratcliffe would publish many of Leese's anti-Semitic cartoons and Leese would publish an article announcing Ratcliffe 's death in Ratcliffe 's newspaper The Vanguard in 1947.46 Thus Ratcliffe’s links with the future course of Holocaust denial and the far right demonstrate the likelihood that his arguments inspired a new generation of deniers, who responded to new information and sources as they emerged in the following decades.
It is clear that the arguments used by contemporary Holocaust deniers are present in the literature of Reed and Ratcliffe. 47 What is striking about the literature from the period under study is its overt link with anti-Semitism, or more specifically with the idea of a 'world Jewish conspiracy', Both Reed and Ratcliffe attempted to suggest they were not anti-Semites, but rather seeking 'truth'. 43 However, as demonstrated above, their anti-Semitism was overt and omnipresent in their publications. This was to be expected given the flexibility of such conspiracy theories; it was this elasticity which easily incorporated new information into pre-existing anti-Semitic thinking. This is particularly important when such literature is compared to the pseudo-academic apparatus that is employed by Holocaust deniers who camouflage this overt anti-Semitism behind the 'academic' facade of Holocaust denial. This is not the case of all Holocaust deniers: individuals like Colin Jordan, Lady Jane Birdwood and groups like Column 68 and Combat 18 all publish material where Holocaust denial is still placed along an anti-Semitic diatribe unrelated to the Holocaust. 49 What these initial responses to the crimes against the Jews from ...
... Nazi-occupied Europe demonstrate, is the ease with which they are absorbed into traditional anti-Semitic rhetoric. While the arguments of deniers may have become more sophisticated as they engaged with the mounting academic studies on the Holocaust, they emerged as the product of anti-Semitic rhetoric that existed before the Holocaust. However, the growing awareness of the Holocaust certainly propagated more aggressive responses from the far right and Holocaust deniers who saw the Nazi genocide as a barrier in the public imagination to support of the ideologies they promulgated.
Today Holocaust denial has been established as a 'discipline' in its own right amongst the far right and followers of conspiracy theories. This sea change is perhaps explicable in response to the growing changes in far right parties to be considered legitimate and viable alternatives to mainstream political parties. 50 Holocaust denial therefore provides a different mantle. It has been used, of course, to expunge the crimes of the Nazis and to present fascism and Nazism as legitimate alternatives to democratic institutions, as argued by Lipstadt. 51 Today it is used as a flag to attract like-minded individuals and followers to its cause. Holocaust revisionism and negationism almost stand as an expression of anti-Semitic hatred which carefully camouflages overt anti-Semitic rhetoric, allowing its proponents to present a public face with the label of 'legitimate historical revisionism' while keeping the more ugly side of their anti- Semitic views behind closed doors and away from a public audience. Yet such an explanation is not always enough to explain why denial is lodged in the character of post-war far right thinking. It is also necessary to understand that denial and anti-Semitic conspiracy theories are part of the epistemological basis on which Nazi, neo-Nazi and far right positions understand the world.
In comparing these early forms of denial to more recent examples, similarities and differences emerge. As we have seen, the principal arguments for attack remain largely unchanged. The arguments may have become more sophisticated and incorporate more detailed attacks on specific sites of mass murder like Auschwitz, but the main trajectory of attack remains constant: the numbers of Jews killed are grossly exaggerated; the evidence that pertains to the Holocaust has been falsified; what murders did take place do not represent a systemic extermination policy: and any killing of the Jews took 'place because of the crimes of the Jews concerned' (e.g. they were partisans or criminals). What has changed since these early inceptions is the way in which denial is 'packaged', and this has largely been due to changes that have taken place in the far right as a result of changes in society. This has forced such groups to reinvent their particular brand of nee-fascism and extreme right ideologies in line with an electorate that has little appetite for racist and bigoted ideologies.
Studying individuals like Ratcliffe and their prototypal denial is a valuable pursuit for the public and academic understanding of Holocaust denial, but also for those who study anti-Semitism and racial hatred in Britain as well as the changing shape of the far right. The study of this early denial demonstrates how our knowledge of the Holocaust has developed and how far right publications have responded to the growing scholastic research on the Holocaust. Furthermore, such material demonstrates how denial was predestined to be a product of individuals with extreme anti-Semitic views, and used as a measure of political expedience to explain away Nazi crimes that tarnished their ideologies.
The study of these individuals and their publications is also of value in other contexts. Raldiffe was subject to investigation by the British government and questions in the House of Commons. Studying these reactions and responses can reveal much about processes and legal debate over the way in which the British government dealt with such publications and would provide interesting comparisons with other European countries which have Holocaust denial enshrined in specific laws. The denial espoused by Ratcliffe provides a rich vein of material that explains the context in which denial was forged. the basic arguments it presented, and provides the historian with an insight into its origins. It also serves the interests of legal professionals and academics as to the development of legal recourse against such material, and provides other social science disciplines with insights into the psychological and sociological foundations of Holocaust denial. While individuals like Ratcliffe and Reed may not represent the more complex and entangled arguments of more contemporary deniers. they provide an important foundation in the development of Holocaust denial which has been overlooked in the literature of Holocaust denial historiography.
Countering Holocaust denial in relation to the Nuremberg trials.
Whoever denies the genocide destroys the memory of the victims and prepares the repetition of collective deaths. 1
By 'genocide denial' I understand expressions of ideas, beliefs and theories aiming to deny, grossly minimise, or otherwise trivialise acts of genocide in ways that are reasonably perceived as insulting to the memory of the victims of such gross international criminality. 2 As was stated in the appeal hearing of the Irving v Penguin Books defamation case:
Holocaust denial means not necessarily a blank refusal to acknowledge a Nazi policy of mass murder of Jews and other minorities but a systematic endeavour, by marginalising and excusing what happened, to accuse those who insist upon it of being Zionist propagandists. 3
States as well as groups, organisations and individuals can be perpetrators. 4 Here, the underlying political motivation behind such expressions is often similar to that which first motivated previous acts of genocide. In my area of World War II war crimes trials research. genocide denial mainly consists of Holocaust denial. 5
Such denial includes specific claims that. notwithstanding well-established historical facts to the contrary, 6 the Nazis did not murder c.6 million Jews, that the notion of murderous gas chambers is a myth, and that any deaths of Jews occurring under the Nazis took place only because of wartime privations? Such denial persists despite the fact that this genocide is one of the best-documented Instances, with a broad range of mutually corroborating and compelling evidence reaffirming its various elements .8
This chapter is written from the perspective and experience of a legal researcher conducting empirical archival research primarily into the Nuremberg process. 9 This decade-long programme has included my obtaining, analysing and integrating original US intelligence documentation in relation to Nazi war crimes in general, 10 and the Holocaust in particular. 11
The latter has culminated in my two-volume study of the contributions US intelligence officials made to the Holocaust-related aspects of the Nuremberg trials process, including the mass organised theft of Jewish-owned works of art. 12 In particular. and over the last decade, I have focused upon analysing previously secret, classified documentation that the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has recently declassified, which reveals the substantial contribution of Anglo-American intelligence officials to key aspects of the Nuremberg process, together with selective subversion of aspects of these trials by means of unofficial immunity deals. 13
My overall interdisciplinary project. sometimes developed in conjunction with other researchers from various disciplines including taw and military history, 14 has involved publishing a series of studies and case studies on the interaction between intelligence officials and Nazi war crimes prosecutors.